Thank you USA

[Grenville]

Dear Residents of the USA:

Thank you for caring enough to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations in order to stop mass murder. Thank you for the lives that you have saved at the incalculable sacrifice of your sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters. My words are an insufficient expression of the gratitude that I feel, but thank you none-the-less.

You are not obligated to save the lives of people of other nations, and you do not intervene in all countries that desperately need military intervention, but thank you for when you have intervened.

I believe that nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations, and should respect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. I do not believe that any nation has the right to violate another nation’s sovereignty in order to bring relief to citizens suffering under a leader who is corrupt, and has mismanaged the country’s finances and social services. That is an internal matter for the citizens to resolve. However, some leaders see their citizens as their property, to torture and murder at will.

When leaders begin to mass murder their citizens, then those leaders should become illegitimate and the United Nations should remove them. Unfortunately, the United Nations is not effective at removing despots, so generations of people continue to suffer.
Human beings are not property, as African slaves were legally defined some 200 years ago. All human beings are our brothers and sisters, and they are not somehow less valuable just because they have the misfortune of living under an oppressive regime. Every oppressed person has the right to expect to be liberated.

Being liberated must be a wonderful feeling. In neighbouring Grenada, despots executed the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet, and massacred some civilians in 1983. The governments of Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Antigua, and St. Vincent responded by informally asking US President Reagan to join them in a coalition of the willing in order to liberate the people of Grenada. The USA only agreed to participate after these nations made a formal request. President Reagan then convinced the American public to support the intervention, by explaining that the operation included securing the safety of American medical students at the university in Grenada.

I followed that operation with interest since Barbados was used as the staging area for what was called Operation Urgent Fury. I remember when it was all over, and President Reagan subsequently visited Grenada, that the Grenadian people were so elated that they wanted to change their national anthem to the US national anthem – such was the temporary exhilaration of being liberated, and I felt their joy.

I have subsequently read publications that criticised the USA’s involvement in the operation. I understand that the US has meddled in the affairs of other nations and has supported despots who have committed mass murder. That is clearly wrong. However, I have visited Grenada many times and regardless of the US Government’s motives, Grenadians are generally happy that the US participated in their liberation.Many people have misgivings about the war in Iraq. However, that invasion sent a message to depots and potential despots worldwide that sovereign borders will not be respected if they start to mass murder their citizens. It should be noted that people living in developing countries, under leaders with little accountability, can potentially be one election away from despotism.

Thank you again for caring.

 

[Rosco]

Only if they can steal their oil.

 

[Morcova]

Only if they can steal their oil.

Which is why gas cost 3 dollars a gallon.... because we stole their oil.....

Reality 1
Conspiracy theorist 0

 

[Rosco]

Which is why gas cost 3 dollars a gallon.... because we stole their oil.....

Reality 1
Conspiracy theorist 0

You obviously haven't stolen their oil yet. Work on it.

 

[Allister]

I would prefer UN miltiary intervention as opposed to US miltiary invasions. I don't trust the American agenda.

 

[TheReasoner]

The US government has funded, trained and aided mass murderers and mass murders before.
The deaths this has caused number in the millions.

I am not about to thank them for that.

Their corporations oppress and exploit the poor all over the world, even their medical companies are run with extreme profit as their sole goal, often resulting in medication being too expensive, or prescribed and sold to people who do not need them.

I am not about to thank them for that.

When the corporations mentioned above feel their interests are threatened you can trust in the US to intervene with military force, or covert operations - courtesy of the CIA.

I am not about to thank them for that.

Becuase of US history being as foul as it is I am not likely to trust their agenda anytime soon. I say that is the UNs job. Not the job of any one nation. Certainly not the job of the self-proclaimed world police USA.

 

[m9lc]

It should be the UN's job. Problem is, the UN hardly ever gets anything done, because of the policy that any one member of the Security Council can veto a UN police action.

 

[Morcova]

Becuase of US history being as foul as it is I am not likely to trust their agenda anytime soon. I say that is the UNs job. Not the job of any one nation. Certainly not the job of the self-proclaimed world police USA.

Yes, the UN is really really effective at taking care of things, just ask the Rawandans or the Sudanese or the people of Darfur. And sorry, weren't not the self-proclaimed world police, honestly were tired of it. The problem is people like yourself who gripe when we do something and gripe when do nothing. Simply put we can't win.

And you talk about medication? That's fine, let the goverment of norway pay for the billions of dollars of research it takes to make good medicines.

The US government has funded, trained and aided mass murderers and mass murders before.
The deaths this has caused number in the millions.

Yes the goverment has made some bad choices about who it backs. Norway collaborated with the Nazi's and had what... twelve concentration camps under the leadership of Quisling, head of the Norwegian Nazi party? There's an old saying about glass houses.

Their corporations oppress and exploit the poor all over the world

Are we going to pretend now that it's only american companies that use labor from the third world?

When the corporations mentioned above feel their interests are threatened you can trust in the US to intervene with military force, or covert operations - courtesy of the CIA.

And we've got a good conspiracy theory to round it up.

This is pretty much why I'm completely against anymore intervention by America, we give 12 billion dollars to africa to help fight AIDS were told were greedy. Were told that were evil because we have the gall to try to defend our borders, while the same people who attack us for wanting to defend our borders complain about illegal immigrants from North Africa and legal immigrants from Eastern Europe. It's time to pull our troops out of all of our foriegn bases and let Europe handle everything. It's also time to pull out of the UN, let them setup in Norway, and let Norway pay the bills that America used to pay.

Comeon! It's time to step up! The people in Darfur need you!

 

[Grenville]

Hi Everyone:

I acknowledged the poor mistakes that the USA had made with supporting despots. However, that was not the point of my article.

It is easy to ignore the cries of the oppressed when you are not directly affected by the oppressor. Despots normally kill first those who have made public comments in the past, and then get around to the general population later. I therefore realize that I will be one of the first to be targeted should we slip into despotic rule.

If that occurs, and I am being mercilessly tortured, then to look to the UN for help would be to look in vain. I would hope that the US would help.

I do not think that the US should help by sending in ground troops. Just give the despot 24 hours to leave the country. If he does not comply, then target the despot with a missile and tell his successor that if he continues with the mass murder, then he can expect the same.

In this way, the cost to the US is minimal and US casualties are zero.

There must be at least one nation in this world that the oppressed of the world can look to for hope.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Scholar in training]

I would prefer UN miltiary intervention as opposed to US miltiary invasions. I don't trust the American agenda.

At the same time, the US's political influence can be critical when voting on intervention. Right now Ban Ki-Moon is just negotiating with Sudanese leaders; in contrast, the US has explicitly called the killings in Darfur genocide.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes, the UN is really really effective at taking care of things, just ask the Rawandans or the Sudanese or the people of Darfur. And sorry, weren't not the self-proclaimed world police, honestly were tired of it. The problem is people like yourself who gripe when we do something and gripe when do nothing. Simply put we can't win.

When have I 'griped' about you not doing anything? I am very much aware of the UN's shortcomings. I am not saying the UN is perfect, nor that it does not have potential for improvement. It does. But I still believe that a multinational forum should be in charge of international 'policing' - not your nation.
You claim you are not a self proclaimed world police? What then do you call all your military actions abroad? What do you call toppling left-wing governments whenever your economical interests are threatened? What do you call illegal invasions, funding of dictators, training of death squads? What do you call smuggling out nazi war criminals before they faced a trial, or corrupting your own nations' journalists to spread propaganda? What do you call drugging innocents in mind control experiments. Maybe more like world-class bully I guess. I stand corrected.

And you talk about medication? That's fine, let the goverment of norway pay for the billions of dollars of research it takes to make good medicines.

Yes, I talk about medicines. I talk about the medical corporations taking 99% profit on drugs sold in the USA. I am talking about lobbying to make the FDA allow drugs that are dangerous to the people who take them. I am talking about overmedicating for profit, which is contrary to the hypocratic oath if anything is.

Yes the goverment has made some bad choices about who it backs. Norway collaborated with the Nazi's and had what... twelve concentration camps under the leadership of Quisling, head of the Norwegian Nazi party? There's an old saying about glass houses.

May I remind you that we were occupied at that time. That our government was abroad? Quisling performed a coup, and was only able to do so because of the nazi occupation.
So your accusations do not really hold water.
We could also have a look at the US treatment of native Americans, or during WW2 the treatment of Japanese. You imprisoned them based on their race. While these camps do not compare to gulags or concentration camps, it was unethical. Prior to WW2 you also had a massive support for fascism in your country, and Jews were not highly thought of.

Are we going to pretend now that it's only american companies that use labor from the third world?

No. Of course not. I did not say that. I am very well aware of our own use of third world labor as well. But that does not excuse the fact that many corporations do so. And frankly, because not much good has come out of the USA compared to the bad, I brought this up as another example to why we do not owe that much thanks to the US. Of course this also applies to us. Never said it did not.

And we've got a good conspiracy theory to round it up.

This is pretty much why I'm completely against anymore intervention by America, we give 12 billion dollars to africa to help fight AIDS were told were greedy.

Oh yes. You give so much. Less than everyone else. But yes. Thank you so much for ALL the efforts you put in (even though you are a very rich and powerful nation, you give less than most others).
You give around 0.1% of your GNP, and according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries. In comparison Ireland, Norway, the UK, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden tie less than 10% in the same way.
But, you might say, the USA is so much bigger and it's GNP is so much, that 0.1% amounts to a lot. And yes, it does. But, let's take a look at how much different nations give per capita in cold hard cash. #1 is Luxembourg which gives $496.59 per capita. In comparison the USA is number 22 with $23.12. Not much at all. The average is $136.64. How generous.

Were told that were evil because we have the gall to try to defend our borders,

Defend your borders? When did the US last defend it's own borders? Mostly your military actions are abroad, and they are anything but defensive! Least of all are they defending your own borders.

while the same people who attack us for wanting to defend our borders complain about illegal immigrants from North Africa and legal immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Like you don't complain about immigrants from Mexico.

It's time to pull our troops out of all of our foriegn bases and let Europe handle everything. It's also time to pull out of the UN, let them setup in Norway, and let Norway pay the bills that America used to pay.

We are not asking that you stop all interest internationally. We are asking that you open your eyes instead of shooting wildly around you in the dark. You are so immensely quick to whine about the bills you pay. So show me, how much do you pay in comparison to your own wealth and the payments other nations give. Could you answer me why you have such a vast military budget? Your borders may need defending as all borders do, but that does not require an offensive force strong enough to take on most or all of Asia in one go. Your military is built on an offensive model, and it has rarely been used for anything but offense.
We ask you to stop acting alone, and listen to other nations as your equals. We ask you to debate, not overrule and veto whatever others might have to contribute. Instead of ridiculing and stubbornly refuse t follow international incentives - such as the kyoto agreement - debate it. Bring forth your own arguments after gathering other nations who feel the same way, and then have it put to the vote. When the vote is made - follow the result as any other nation does. That is what we want. Stop trying to rule us, stop ignoring us. Stop mocking us. And start cooperating! (for the record I think the whole veto thing is hopelessly outdated and no-one should have a right to use it). But fine. If you want to stand alone, disband NATO. If you want to keep ruling it as you do. Or try to anyway, we will not have anything to do with it as the people of free nations. We will form other alliances, other fora. We already see that other fora are forming. In Asia, Africa and I would guess it could form rapidly in Europe as well.

Comeon! It's time to step up! The people in Darfur need you!

Yes. So let's get guns and shoot everyone. That always helps.

 

[Morcova]

What do you call smuggling out nazi war criminals before they faced a trial, or corrupting your own nations' journalists to spread propaganda? What do you call drugging innocents in mind control experiments. Maybe more like world-class bully I guess. I stand corrected.

Lets see ... all ya have there are conspiracy theories.... mind control experiments??? Are you joking?!

Yes, I talk about medicines. I talk about the medical corporations taking 99% profit on drugs sold in the USA. I am talking about lobbying to make the FDA allow drugs that are dangerous to the people who take them. I am talking about overmedicating for profit, which is contrary to the hypocratic oath if anything is.

The monsters, how DARE they take a profit off of a product they spent billions creating. Overmedicating???? Take that up with the doctors, I've never been overmedicated, and as best I can tell, drug companies don't take a hippocratic oath either.

May I remind you that we were occupied at that time. That our government was abroad? Quisling performed a coup, and was only able to do so because of the nazi occupation.
So your accusations do not really hold water.

Of course there's always excuse, lets forget that Quisling was a norweigan and lets forget that plenty of your own people went along with the germans.

We could also have a look at the US treatment of native Americans,

Yes that was fairly cruddy.

or during WW2 the treatment of Japanese. You imprisoned them based on their race.

You do realize that Germans were put in camps too don't you? Why do you choose to ignore them?

While these camps do not compare to gulags or concentration camps, it was unethical.

Yes, unethethic... of course they weren't camps where people were being mass murdered.. how many of those camps did your country have again?

Prior to WW2 you also had a massive support for fascism in your country, and Jews were not highly thought of.

Do tell? You do realize that in the developed world the highest amount of anti-semitism takes place in europe don't you? Don't preach to me about jews not being highly thought of till you take care of your own problem.

No. Of course not. I did not say that. I am very well aware of our own use of third world labor as well. But that does not excuse the fact that many corporations do so. And frankly, because not much good has come out of the USA compared to the bad, I brought this up as another example to why we do not owe that much thanks to the US. Of course this also applies to us. Never said it did not.

Oh come on don't backpedal now. Do you understand the phrase about glass houses?

Oh yes. You give so much. Less than everyone else. But yes. Thank you so much for ALL the efforts you put in (even though you are a very rich and powerful nation, you give less than most others).
You give around 0.1% of your GNP, and according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries. In comparison Ireland, Norway, the UK, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden tie less than 10% in the same way.
But, you might say, the USA is so much bigger and it's GNP is so much, that 0.1% amounts to a lot. And yes, it does. But, let's take a look at how much different nations give per capita in cold hard cash. #1 is Luxembourg which gives $496.59 per capita. In comparison the USA is number 22 with $23.12. Not much at all. The average is $136.64. How generous.

Indeed how generous, the problem you seem to be having is you are only looking at monies given by the goverments. What is the rate of taxes in Norway compared to the United States?

What about private donors? You know people who give away money in addition to what's given by goverments.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

• International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
• Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
• American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
• Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
• US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
• Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
• Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”.

So while your busy sitting back thinking your tax money is going to other countries as aid americans are actually pulling out our pocket books and writing checks in addition to the billions that our goverment already gives.

Defend your borders? When did the US last defend it's own borders?

Are you joking? That's the point, we talk about building a fence to keep out illegals and we get called out on it.

Like you don't complain about immigrants from Mexico.

That's just the thing tho, we do, but we (unlike europeans) don't turn around and yell at other countries about their immigration practices.

We are not asking that you stop all interest internationally.

No of course not, because if we did, you might be asked to actually do something.. and we absolutly cannot have that!

You are so immensely quick to whine about the bills you pay. So show me, how much do you pay in comparison to your own wealth and the payments other nations give.

That's dumb argument, is we pay the majority of the bills it doesn't matter what percent of our wealth goes to it, we are still paying the biggest part of the whole burden.

Could you answer me why you have such a vast military budget?

Why do most countries have a military budgets?

Your borders may need defending as all borders do, but that does not require an offensive force strong enough to take on most or all of Asia in one go. Your military is built on an offensive model, and it has rarely been used for anything but offense.

Of course it has, the idea is to keep from having to wait till our enemies are at our doorsteps...

We ask you to stop acting alone, and listen to other nations as your equals.

No you don't, you want us to do exactly what you want us to do and ignore our own national interests. And when we are paying the majority of the bills why should we treat other countries who don't pay their fair shares as equals?

We ask you to debate, not overrule and veto whatever others might have to contribute.

Like what countries? France? Germany? Russia? Yeah listening to those countries was really helpful. Of course we then found out that they were using the UN to try to keep anything being done about Iraq so they could break international laws. But hey, it's the American's who wanted the oil right?

Instead of ridiculing and stubbornly refuse t follow international incentives - such as the kyoto agreement - debate it.

We did, it doesn't work for us, tell me what is the reason that China was exempted from KT again?

Bring forth your own arguments after gathering other nations who feel the same way, and then have it put to the vote. When the vote is made - follow the result as any other nation does.

What good does that do? Why should we even bother with an orginazation that allows countries like Sudan on the human rights committee?

(for the record I think the whole veto thing is hopelessly outdated and no-one should have a right to use it).

Of course you'd see it that way.

But fine. If you want to stand alone, disband NATO. If you want to keep ruling it as you do. Or try to anyway, we will not have anything to do with it as the people of free nations. We will form other alliances, other fora.

And your alliances will be fairly useless. What good is nato? What good is the un? You required us to topple milosovich, he's in your backyard! If you can't even handle people in your back yard what good do you think you're going to do?

Yes. So let's get guns and shoot everyone. That always helps.

And this is exactly why your alliance wont work, oh sure I'm sure you'll make some diplomats happy by giving them jobs but when it comes down to taking action... well lots and lots of talk and nothing much.

Incidently alot of people who are now dead would be alive if we'd done something militarialy speaking in the Sudan, in Rawanda and now in Darfur. Were currently busy fighting two wars right now... what is Norways army doing right now? Why don't you send your people into Darfur to stop the killings? No, no your right... groups who are convinced that genocide is the right course of actions are so open to conversation. Just ask the jews.

 

[TheReasoner]

Lets see ... all ya have there are conspiracy theories.... mind control experiments??? Are you joking?!

no. I am not joking.In what is known as operation paperclip Nazi scientists were smuggled out of germany before they could face trial. Mainly rocket scientists it was still wrong. But it did help the US during the cold war.
Operation mockingbird is probably the most well known. In this the USA bribed/paid US journalists to control the media.
MK ULTRA is what I was referring to which you did not believe. It gained a fair amount of publicity in 1974 when the new york times revealed the project. It was believed it was largely responsible for the actions of the unabomber - who had participated as a willing test subject.
I don't deal in conspiracy theories. I deal in facts. Even though conspiracy theories can be fun to discuss.

The monsters, how DARE they take a profit off of a product they spent billions creating.

If a profit is made at the expense of health and lives, that profit is unethically acquired.

Overmedicating???? Take that up with the doctors, I've never been overmedicated, and as best I can tell, drug companies don't take a hippocratic oath either.

How do you know if you have been overmedicated? Take an american woman I know. Her American doctor - an acknowledged one - has given her medications for high cholesterol and digestive issues. Her daughter had the same problems, yet refused to take the medications. Instead she changed her diet to organic foods. The ailments the doctor believed would be permanent went away in a matter of months. Fact is, a lot of the problems we today take a lot of pills for can easilly be cured by enough rest and healthy food.

Of course there's always excuse, lets forget that Quisling was a norweigan and lets forget that plenty of your own people went along with the germans.

Oh. So did Americans. That does not mean the USA was an axis power though.

Yes that was fairly cruddy.

That's an understatement if I ever saw one.

You do realize that Germans were put in camps too don't you? Why do you choose to ignore them?

So, everyone I do not mention at every bend and curve are ignored? That was also unethical. Happy?

Yes, unethethic... of course they weren't camps where people were being mass murdered.. how many of those camps did your country have again?

None. The camps were constructed by occupying forces. My country, as in my government, never constructed concentration camps. Taht's like blaming Cuba for Guantanamo bay!

Do tell? You do realize that in the developed world the highest amount of anti-semitism takes place in europe don't you? Don't preach to me about jews not being highly thought of till you take care of your own problem.

Hm. Did I say we don't have problems? No. Tell me Morcova, why are you so insistent in illogical argumentation? Instead of bringing up logical arguments you fling dirt. I am very well aware of the anti-semmittism here in Europe. And indeed other forms of racism. In France there is a lot of discrimination against African immigrants based on their skin color. That's one of the main reasons for the riots earlier which I am sure you know of.

Oh come on don't backpedal now. Do you understand the phrase about glass houses?

Yes. But judging by your behaviour I am not too sure you do. You seem to demand that I cover all aspects of the case in one argument. That is quite honestly impossible. Furthermore, when the USA is the topic at hand then the USA is what we discuss. Not other nations primarily. I am more than willing to discuss social injustices in Europe, and caused by Europeans as well. There are loads, and my own country is responsible for a lot of it. We're dealing in arms trade on the one hand, and hosting the nobel peace prize on the other. You do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. But, your nation is the nation this thread is about. And as such then your nation is the one we debate. If you have a problem with the topic, then leave the thread.

Indeed how generous, the problem you seem to be having is you are only looking at monies given by the goverments. What is the rate of taxes in Norway compared to the United States?

What about private donors? You know people who give away money in addition to what's given by goverments.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

• International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
• Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
• American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
• Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
• US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
• Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
• Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”.

Even with all the private money you give, you give less than a lot of western nations per capita. You're still hovering around average.

So while your busy sitting back thinking your tax money is going to other countries as aid americans are actually pulling out our pocket books and writing checks in addition to the billions that our goverment already gives.

I am touched. No, not really. What is it with the American idea that other nations are so much more stingy? Can you provide numbers on international aid given privately from other nations? What is that number per capita, and what is it for the US per capita?

Are you joking? That's the point, we talk about building a fence to keep out illegals and we get called out on it.
That's just the thing tho, we do, but we (unlike europeans) don't turn around and yell at other countries about their immigration practices.

Unlike European nations, your nation is huge. And last time I checked there are certain states who are frustrated with other states over such issues. Such a comparison is not truly valid because comparatively the US does not face the same problems. Sure, you have many South American immigrants. But you do not really have other nations on the same continent who are alternate sources of immigration from South America. We do have other nations through which illegal immigrants come.

No of course not, because if we did, you might be asked to actually do something.. and we absolutly cannot have that!

Frankly though. If you are going to keep vetoing, and refusing to listen to others, refusing to debate like you have done so far, I believe we are better off without your influence in the UN. And personally I would have asked the US to change their policies radically, resign from the UN, or I would have delivered my nation's resignation. But it is not up to me.

That's dumb argument, is we pay the majority of the bills it doesn't matter what percent of our wealth goes to it, we are still paying the biggest part of the whole burden.

Numbers please.

Why do most countries have a military budgets?

Why do no nation have a comparative military budget? Yours is ridiculous! Imagine the good that money could have done in education or research... But no. You have to buy guns so you can shoot whoever-stands-in-your-corporations'-way.

Of course it has, the idea is to keep from having to wait till our enemies are at our doorsteps...

Yes. That's why you funded the Contras. Right? Why you backed Somoza. Because Nicaragua posed such a threat to your borders. That's also why you helped the shah of iran train his SAVAK too, hm? That was so important in your scheme to protect your borders. Also why you bombed Cambodia. Such necessary pre-emptive strikes against the big, bad guys.

No you don't, you want us to do exactly what you want us to do and ignore our own national interests.

Of course not! I just want other nations to be seen as and treated as equals. Not pawns there to please the US.

And when we are paying the majority of the bills why should we treat other countries who don't pay their fair shares as equals?

Provide numbers to back that up please.

Like what countries? France? Germany? Russia? Yeah listening to those countries was really helpful. Of course we then found out that they were using the UN to try to keep anything being done about Iraq so they could break international laws. But hey, it's the American's who wanted the oil right?

Still does not make it OK to invade in conflict with international law. Lie about the reason for the war, etc etc etc...

We did, it doesn't work for us, tell me what is the reason that China was exempted from KT again?

Oh no. You did not have a debate. You had it signed, and then you chose to ignore it. Clinton signed it. But it was never ratified. As far as I remember there was a lot of whining from the USA about the Kyoto being a bad thing. About it having so many flaws. And yes, there are flaws with the treaty. But why didn't you formulate changes, or an alternative?

What good does that do? Why should we even bother with an orginazation that allows countries like Sudan on the human rights committee?

Why bother with one who lets you in on it? You're no saints you know. I would guess the agenda with having Sudan in on it is to try to influence a nation in dire need of influence. Sort of like giving the nobel's peace price to Arafat.

Of course you'd see it that way.

Well, one of the reasons the UN never does anything is vetos. Veto gives too much power to one nation. Vetos belong in totalitarian systems. Not democratic ones. Fact is, the notion of "veto" is archaic and undemocratic.


Come back to me when you have matured some. Maybe when you are able to treat others with respect? One tip is; If you do not show others respect, you will loose any you used to have. The US gained a lot of respect during WW2 and the cold war. But you worked hard to lose it with foul play, excessive patting of your own back. International tomfoolery and more. From what I gather from this debate you have a fair amount of information gathering skills. Use them. There is a lot which would explain why most of the world today either dislikes or outright hates the US as a nation. Don't fret at it. There are good reasons for this distaste. And frankly, it is disturbing that the US citizens have not done much about it.

 

[TheShiningPath]

The Bush administration keeps telling everybody about this al-queda/Terrorist and other fabrications. But the fact remains that a country never goes to war Unless they feel the existance of their state is under threat or For Substantial economic gain. I dont think the Biggest economic/military power in the world was going to fall apart over 9/11.


The war isn't meant to end. It is meant to be continous.

The rich reap the economic benefits of Iraq while the poor will still support the Government as they are under the illusion that they need their protection. Oil prices and such matters affect the Working class more then anyone else... Bush and his cronies are unconcerned with such matters.

 

[CCGirl]

The Bush administration keeps telling everybody about this al-queda/Terrorist and other fabrications. But the fact remains that a country never goes to war Unless they feel the existance of their state is under threat or For Substantial economic gain. I dont think the Biggest economic/military power in the world was going to fall apart over 9/11.


The war isn't meant to end. It is meant to be continous.

The rich reap the economic benefits of Iraq while the poor will still support the Government as they are under the illusion that they need their protection. Oil prices and such matters affect the Working class more then anyone else... Bush and his cronies are unconcerned with such matters.

Exactly!

 

[Grenville]

Hi Everyone:

If countries only go to war for selfish reasons, then there is no hope for the oppressed of the world. That is why I suggested a method that would not cost US lives or too much money. Simple target the despot and warn his/her successor to expect the same.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[TheReasoner]

Hi Everyone:

If countries only go to war for selfish reasons, then there is no hope for the oppressed of the world. That is why I suggested a method that would not cost US lives or too much money. Simple target the despot and warn his/her successor to expect the same.

Regards,
Grenville

There are beter ways than launching a cruise missile. If you want him taken out, assasinate him.
But even so, we should have learned by now that removing a dictator does not automatically improve things. In our own countries it took centuries before we had stable democracies. And such a change has in our cases been propelled forward by the citizens of said country. Wether it was a bloody rebellion or fairly peaceful transition, such things take time, and only work if the people are truly ready to work hard for it themselves.
Have someone from abroad force you into democracy prematurely and you get more problems. Not only a depenence on someone else, but also an inability to truly appretiate your freedom, after all not much was done to get it. Most likely a lot of frustration and even hatred would also be directed at the liberatr because of the hardships that follow such an assasination.

No. Slow transition fuelled primarily by the citizens of said country is the only way.

 

[Swart]

No. Slow transition fuelled primarily by the citizens of said country is the only way.

Imagine for a moment that France had looked at the colonies in America in 1760 and said "The Americans are being oppressed by the British. Let's invade the country and liberate it for the Americans!"

What would have been the result?

 

[FluffyRabbitHunter]

Hmmm... someone clearly needs to read some Chomsky. Such a starry-eyed view of America is not helpful in the least.

General Pinochet, supported by Reagen and Thatcher, murdered thousands of people in his home country. The Conturas, a terrorist group funded by the USA, raped and slaughtered their way through Nicuragua. The USA has toppled the government in many countries, set up Saddam, set up bin Laden, and a few other despots too.

It is not for us to judge the actions of a few rich men who make a mockery of justice, for they, too, are trapped in the hold of a capitalist system which Christians are called to fight. But it is for us to fight that greed, it is for us to knock satan from that system built on class, wealth, and image. Jesus made is clear that his kingdom is here, now - and that means we can no longer support random wars around the world, internationalism that forces thousands into sweatshops and thousands more into prostitution; it means we can no longer tolerate wage slavery; no longer tolerate weapons trading; no longer tolerate a few having all the wealth in the world. Jesus did not come to support a system where the 3 richest people own more than the poorest 600,000,000. Jesus came so that our humanity was just that - human - rather than the inhumane state that capitalism, and her demons in Wall St, Canary Warf, military spending, unequal wealth divides, abuse of human rights...

 

[Swart]

Hmmm... someone clearly needs to read some Chomsky. Such a starry-eyed view of America is not helpful in the least.

I recommend "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.