Happy Birthday USA

[Darque]

And how can you hate this country that much?

 

It's trendy these days.

 

 

Yes, that is correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with the way the goverments have repeatedly "misbehaved" towards other countries dating back to pre-WW2 days. Personally, I think we should just ignore it and focus on all the positive things the US has given us instead Like American Idol or Cheese-filled pizza crusts.

 

 

"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm more talking about how it appears to be "trendy" for Americans to hate their own country rather than try to do anything about it.

[Darth Flatus]

I'm not sure its the country they hate but the actual govt. which is fine. As for non citizens who berate the US; thats ok too not everything they say has to be taken seriously.

[213374U]

Yes, that is correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with the way the goverments have repeatedly "misbehaved" towards other countries dating back to pre-WW2 days. Personally, I think we should just ignore it and focus on all the positive things the US has given us instead Like American Idol or Cheese-filled pizza crusts.

AKA jealousy.

 

[Calax]

I don't hate the country I just hate the fact that we are becoming what we tried to kill in the Revolutionary war namly a giant empire who shoves criminals into another country (Guantanamo bay)

 

By the way have the "war criminals" who were at guantanamo ever tried or even given a hearing?

[EnderAndrew]

I don't hate the country I just hate the fact that we are becoming what we tried to kill in the Revolutionary war namly a giant empire who shoves criminals into another country (Guantanamo bay)

 

By the way have the "war criminals" who were at guantanamo ever tried or even given a hearing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say that as much as I defend our country, extraordinary extradition is a horrid practice that I think will be ending very shortly and there is no excuse for it.

 

I think we should do most things in our power to protect this country from attack, but US lives are not more important than other human lives. We shouldn't completely ignore the rights of others in attempting to secure our nation.

[Darque]

Those who trade liberty for security will get neither.

[alanschu]

War is sometimes necessary. Sometimes peace must be attained with the bayonet instead of the olive branch. Sad, but true. Deal with it.

 

Fair enough....but was the current US/Iraq war necessary?

It seemed to me the Bush family still had a bone to pick with Saddam.

 

 

No, but you should always capitalize the name of a country. It's just proper writing.

 

He should capitilize America, but America technically is not a country, but a land mass classified as two different continents (North America and South America). If you want to be really picky, look at the name of your country. It's called the United States of America

 

 

Ironically, most people that I've talked to who have visited other countries hold the same opinion: this one is best.    And believe me, I've talked to many.

 

 

But but but, most people I have......etc.

 

I was under the impression that most of the developed nations consider the U.S. to be arrogant. How come I always hear testimonials about U.S. citizens putting Canadian flags and stuff on their gear when travelling abroad?

 

To play the anecodotal evidence game, family members were recognized and praised for being Canadian. Maybe Canada is the best? :D j/k

 

 

I suppose I am proud of my country, but I don't hold any extreme Nationalism. I think having too much Nationalism is a bad thing, and helps perpetuate elitism.

 

 

 

 

 

On to the Democracy debate....how did the U.S. decide to adopt their legislative assembly? I would guess (i.e. I am just shooting in the dark here) that it would probably be reflective of whatever was going on in Britain since that's what they'd be most familiar with.

 

And when did Great Britain begin it's democratic ways. I mean, the Magna Carta was signed waaaaaaaaay back in like 1217 or something, and seems to have laid the foundation for democracy by guaranteeing the rights of man, and making the King an equal among men (that is, if by "man" you mean "white guy with money that owns land").

[EnderAndrew]

Fair enough....but was the current US/Iraq war necessary?

It seemed to me the Bush family still had a bone to pick with Saddam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may find this hard to believe considering that I was in the Marine Corps, but I abhor violence. I also believe that most war can be prevented with proper diplomacy and problem solving.

 

Still, as a Centrist/Democrat who abhors war, I think going into Iraq was necessary. We're not talking about something the Bush family started, or personal vendettas. We're talking about Saddam practicing genocide, using WMD, attacking neighboring countries and supporting terrorists.

 

Iraq wasn't tied to Al Queada directly, but Saddam did finance terrorism. And whether people realize this or not, but by going into Iraq we also shifted the battleground on the war on terror. Osama Bin Laden said himself the battleground against the US is in Iraq now. Instead of terrorists striking the US on US soil, they are striking the US in Iraq. We're not fighting Saddam's remaining loyalists. We're fighting Al Quaeda members from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

[alanschu]

What about other dictators that go unchecked though?

 

 

Wasn't it like pulling teeth getting the US involved in Kosovo and all that former Yugoslavia stuff?

[EnderAndrew]

What about other dictators that go unchecked though?

 

 

Wasn't it like pulling teeth getting the US involved in Kosovo and all that former Yugoslavia stuff?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No we sent troops into Kosovo right away. We just didn't choose sides, and tried not to fire our guns. Our sole duty there was to provide food and medical relief. There were war crimes committed there, and maybe we should have intervened, but the UN sure didn't. Initially it was really hard to determine which side, if anyone was in the right there.

 

Our job is not to remove all dictators and force the world to accept Democracy. However, there should be some level of international justice. Ideally, the UN would uphold it. The Security Council system is horridly flawed in that it requires unanimous approval to act in any manner. The problem is that any country on the security council, or any ally of a member of the security council can do whatever they want with no reprieve.

 

Add to that, the UN has routinely ignored genocide, so what purpose are they really serving as supposedly an internation body of government?

 

With the Warsaw pact breaking up, perhaps NATO could now include militaries from the entire world, change it's name and become a new peace-keeping force on an international level.

 

I think there should be a 2/3 majority necessary for any use of an international military/police, and they shouldn't be afraid to use it if the need arises.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You may find this hard to believe considering that I was in the Marine Corps, but I abhor violence.  I also believe that most war can be prevented with proper diplomacy and problem solving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not at all surprising to find a former soldier who is cautious about the use of military force. In the UK, I think most WW2 veterans were opposed to our involvement in the Iraq war.

 

Our job is not to remove all dictators and force the world to accept Democracy.  However, there should be some level of international justice.  Ideally, the UN would uphold it.  The Security Council system is horridly flawed in that it requires unanimous approval to act in any manner.  The problem is that any country on the security council, or any ally of a member of the security council can do whatever they want with no reprieve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main problem with the UN Security Council is that the US isn't prepared to accept decisions if the vote goes against it. There was no chance that the US/UK would win a second vote on Iraq, so one was never held. What I want is to hear the US admit that the UN was right, and the US was wrong, over Iraq. It has been a disaster, getting steadily worse. The UN worked, it was the 'coalition' that failed, but there are too many vested interests in the US (and UK) who are not prepared to admit it.

 

The UN is the sum of its members, and an imperfect organisation, for sure. I think the reforms currently proposed by Kofi Annan will improve matters a lot, by making the Security Council more representative of the world, including two new African permanent members. However, the reforms will fail unless countries like the UK and US are willing to accept the UN's authority.

[EnderAndrew]

The main problem with the UN Security Council is that the US isn't prepared to accept decisions if the vote goes against it.  There was no chance that the US/UK would win a second vote on Iraq, so one was never held.  What I want is to hear the US admit that the UN was right, and the US was wrong, over Iraq.  It has been a disaster, getting steadily worse.  The UN worked, it was the 'coalition' that failed, but there are too many vested interests in the US (and UK) who are not prepared to admit it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What did either the US or UK have to gain? We've both lost lives and billions of dollars.

 

The UN claimed our only motive was to steal oil, which wasn't true. Countries that vocally opposed the war however didn't care about humanitarian efforts, or the 30 million people living in Iraq. Countries like France were only concerned with how much money Saddam owned them.

 

Furthermore, we discovered that the countries that vocally opposed the war like France and Russia also illegally sold weapons to Saddam during the embargo.

 

Last time I checked, the UN security council unanimously and repeatedly found Iraq at fault, and in violation of their security resolutions. However the UN was unprepared to do anything about it, 12 years later.

 

The League of Nations was also unprepared to punish Germany when Hitler was forming illegal militias, marching into the Rhinelands, and then invading Poland.

 

If you pass over 75 security resolutions finding someone at fault and threaten action for 12 years, but never take it, will anyone take you seriously as an international government?

 

Did the UN do anything about genocide in Rwanda? When Liberia was about to erupt into bloodshed, the UN sat on their hands while the US helped the situation come to a peaceful resolution.

 

I can understand on principle people finding the US and UK arrogant for taking matters into our own hands. But honestly, the UN is a mockery of international justice.

 

Lastly, if the US was so wrong, then why did the UN recognize the US as legally occupying Iraq? They validated the war. The UN made it all legal. And if the US was so opposed to the rest of the world on the issue, then why did over 30 countries lend their support?

 

Honestly, the major detractors to this war are people who already were looking for any excuse to bash the US, or people who had to something to lose from seeing Saddam go.

 

Also, the last time I checked, while Saddam had 23 personal palaces and spent tons of money on weapons, he intentionally starved his own nation. I guess the UN should stand by and watch 30 million people starve, not due to the poverty of the nation, but due to a cruel strangehold of it's dictator.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The UN claimed our only motive was to steal oil, which wasn't true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has the UN claimed that? I know that Kofi Annan has said that the war was illegal, but I don't think he made any statement about the motives for it. Some opponents of the war have claimed that, but that's not the same thing.

Did the UN do anything about genocide in Rwanda?  When Liberia was about to erupt into bloodshed, the UN sat on their hands while the US helped the situation come to a peaceful resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The UN Security Council is supposed to be something of a court of last resort. Problems are supposed to be settled by friendly nations or regional organisations first, if that's possible, and only go to the Security Council if it's not. Liberia has historical links with the US, and that's why the US was an appropriate partner for solving that problem.

Lastly, if the US was so wrong, then why did the UN recognize the US as legally occupying Iraq?  They validated the war.  The UN made it all legal.  And if the US was so opposed to the rest of the world on the issue, then why did over 30 countries lend their support?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know, the UN has legitimised the current presence of US troops in Iraq because that is the wish of the Iraqi government. It hasn't declared the war legal in retrospect - that would be impossible anyway, wouldn't it?

Honestly, the major detractors to this war are people who already were looking for any excuse to bash the US, or people who had to something to lose from seeing Saddam go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I resent that. I resent the fact that anyone who isn't wholly and enthusiastically supportive of aggressive US foreign policy is dismissed as a Bush-basher or 'anti-American'. I am not looking for an excuse to bash the US - I opposed the war based on my own reasoned judgement of its legality, morality and likely effectiveness. So far, nothing has happened to convince me that I was wrong. A handful of countries who are heavily dependent on US goodwill for their economic prosperity supported this war, and the majority of countries opposed it. I hope that soon US supporters of the war will at least admit that many of its opponents do so with good reason, and are neither cowards nor beneficiaries of Saddam's bribes.

[alanschu]

Actually, I think the case I was most thinking of was actually Rwanda. I don't believe anyone sent troops there, despite 100,000s of people dying like hours.

 

 

I'm just not convinced that the removal of Hussein is simply to remove a dictator causing genocide.

[EnderAndrew]

I resent that.  I resent the fact that anyone who isn't wholly and enthusiastically supportive of aggressive US foreign policy is dismissed as a Bush-basher or 'anti-American'.  I am not looking for an excuse to bash the US - I opposed the war based on my own reasoned judgement of its legality, morality and likely effectiveness.  So far, nothing has happened to convince me that I was wrong.  A handful of countries who are heavily dependent on US goodwill for their economic prosperity supported this war, and the majority of countries opposed it.  I hope that soon US supporters of the war will at least admit that many of its opponents do so with good reason, and are neither cowards nor beneficiaries of Saddam's bribes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm very careful of my words. I didn't say all detractors. I said "the major detractors" (such as political lobbying groups and foreign powers). France, Germany and Russia all sold weapons illegally to Saddam, and were owed money by Saddam. They were the three nations to most vocally oppose the war. You have to sit and question their motives, while 30 industrial nations lent their support. Yet it seems people suggest most of the world opposed the war. You can certainly make a care otherwise.

I'm just not convinced that the removal of Hussein is simply to remove a dictator causing genocide.

I won't argue with you there, as there were multiple reasons to go into Iraq. People also forget something.

 

After September 11th, the UN Security Council got together and passed a new resolution telling Iraq to comply immediately or else. While Bush didn't blame Iraq, the UN seemed to imply they might be corraborating with the terrorists. World support for the US and empathy for the US was up.

 

Had Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he could have marched in on September 12th with most of the world's support, but he would be going in for the wrong reasons, as Saddam didn't have anything to do with September 11th.

 

Even though diplomacy had failed for 10 years in Iraq, Bush pushed for another 2 years of diplomacy. Does that sound like the action of a war-mongering government? When we went in, we then gave them an exact date and two weeks notice, which I considered foolish.

 

Saddam used that time to hide weapons, to move military vehicles into hospital parking lots, to sabotage oil refineries, to shut off food and water supplies to towns, etc.

 

There are a number of dictators I wouldn't mind seeing deposed, but I don't believe we have that right to randomly depose people. However, we did have a legal right to go into Iraq.

 

The cessation of military action against Iraq in 1991 was based upon Iraq's cooperation with security resolutions. They were found in violation of over 75 security violations, and we had prior authority to go in.

 

Given that it was the UN who first authorized and called for military action in Iraq, and that Iraq tested the legitimacy of UN power, I would think the UN would take Iraq more seriously. But as the UN is a farce, they didn't.

 

If there were a true international government in this world, perhaps incidents like the Rwanda genocide wouldn't occur.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'll accept that you can question the motives of countries whose leaders were owed money by, or did illegal trade with, Saddam's Iraq. Can you accept why I might question the motives of a country which launches a military attack on oil-rich Iraq and whose leaders have strong ties to the oil and arms industries?

[213374U]

Can you accept why I might question the motives of a country which launches a military attack on oil-rich Iraq and whose leaders have strong ties to the oil and arms industries?

Why do you keep trying to prove the obvious?

[EnderAndrew]

Yes. I can understand why you might think that way.

 

But before we went in, both Bush and Blair promised that every cent made from every drop of Iraqi oil would be used to benefit the people of Iraq. We would not take any oil, nor would we put in a leader to sell oil to us at a given price.

 

We allowed the people or Iraq to elect their own leaders.

 

Last time I checked, we didn't profit from this war, but it has cost us over $100 billion dollars. We're not there for economic profit.

[213374U]

Last time I checked, we didn't profit from this war, but it has cost us over $100 billion dollars.  We're not there for economic profit.

Then the conclusion is: your leaders are stupid.

 

Really, I think they deserve more credit than you give them.

[EnderAndrew]

Last time I checked, we didn't profit from this war, but it has cost us over $100 billion dollars.  We're not there for economic profit.

Then the conclusion is: your leaders are stupid.

 

Really, I think they deserve more credit than you give them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Either that or we weren't motivated my money, but perhaps by conscious. It is possible.

 

Either that, or we weren't looking for direct profit, but indirect profit if you insist on seeing a monetary motivator. War causes people to have faith in an economy, and generally leads to production and new jobs.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As I understand it only a fraction of the people died in the "war" as were killed during the 10 years of sanction. Sanctions in effect starve the populace of food medicine and other basic items yet no one seems to worry overmuch because it dosnt make the news. What sanctions dont do is have an effect on the dictatorship and any destabilising side effects are lost when you live in such a climate of fear.

 

If the insurgents would let the new government get on with things and take a political rather than a terrorist hand in matters (the IRA managed it eventually) things could resume some kind of stability and ordinary people could cease being blown up by cowardly suicide bombers.

 

As for where the UMD's went, well Syria seems a likely place.

[alanschu]

while 30 industrial nations lent their support.

 

There's 30 industrial nations in the world?

 

 

Had Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he could have marched in on September 12th with most of the world's support, but he would be going in for the wrong reasons, as Saddam didn't have anything to do with September 11th.

 

I'm not so sure. Given the Al-Quaeda links in Afghanistan, I think people would have been going "WTF? You're attacking the wrong people!"

 

 

There are a number of dictators I wouldn't mind seeing deposed, but I don't believe we have that right to randomly depose people. However, we did have a legal right to go into Iraq.

 

I agree that there are some that need to be replaced, and I do agree that it's tricky business and that I don't believe anyone has the right to randomly despose of anyone either. Although it didn't seem to stop the U.S. in certain situations in South America, especially whenever a communist/socialist regime was about to give it a try. Take this from Kissinger:

 

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

 

However, you mention a legal right of going into Iraq. I'll admit I don't follow the war too closely, but what is this legal right?

 

 

Given that it was the UN who first authorized and called for military action in Iraq, and that Iraq tested the legitimacy of UN power, I would think the UN would take Iraq more seriously. But as the UN is a farce, they didn't.

 

If there were a true international government in this world, perhaps incidents like the Rwanda genocide wouldn't occur.

 

I will agree that the UN is pretty ineffective. Although I blame it as much on the creation of permanent Security Council members as much as goofy bureaucracy. While I can understand why the permanent members were created, since the League of Nations was an even bigger joke, their creation has basically stymied the UNs ability to do anything, particularly with that vicious veto. Fortunately prior to the Korean War, the USSR member was not in attendance (I can't remember why, but I believe it was pretty funny), so something could be done about it. Perhaps the permanent members aren't so bad....but I don't like the veto. You could have the entire world be in favour of something, but one country says no? Boo! But it was created because countries are self-serving and would just drop out of the UN if it wasn't working for them...just like the League of Nations.

 

I don't remember the events of Rwanda (I was still quite young at the time....still in High School if I recall, more worried about perfecting my jump shot than anything else ), but why didn't the UN intervene? Was there a goofy veto there?

 

An international governing body is still a long ways off, given that a state still has autonomy over what goes on in its borders. The UN could penalize France, but then France just leaves the UN and tells us to bugger off.

 

The UN does need serious reworking. It's too weak of an entity.

[Darth Flatus]

This war is about oil insofar as the US/UK would prefer someone other than Saddam Hussein to be sitting on top of the world's second largest oil reserves.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Last time I checked, we didn't profit from this war, but it has cost us over $100 billion dollars.  We're not there for economic profit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A critic might argue that although the US as a whole hasn't profited from the war, the arms and oil industries certainly have. Their profits don't come directly from the sale of Iraqi oil, but from contracts with the US government, paid for by US taxpayers. Have the leaders of the US merely taken the opportunity of the war to enrich themselves and their friends? Or was this self-enrichment the main motivation for the war?

 

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for the sake of oil, but I think many in the US are determined to profit from the war. Is it any wonder that so many people are suspicious of US motives?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This war is about oil insofar as the US/UK would prefer someone other than Saddam Hussein to be sitting on top of the world's second largest oil reserves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe George when he says that he's spreading democracy for the good of all people. It might creep me out a bit (Iraq was ok with me since I see it as unfinished business) but I believe he really sees himself as doing it for the good of people rather than oil. The oil is just a happy side effect.