(like one of the students in my grade who went to France last year as an exchange student, and a teacher refused to shake hands because he was American)
I'm going to take issue with this.
You are saying that its ok for you to do that, but they aren't allowed to. This is called hypocrisy.Case in point: 'Freedom Fries' ?
Every American I have got into a political debate with, to this day, hates France with a burning passion because they opposed America's illegal and maverick military actions. Throwing. Toys. Out. Of. Pram.
If you can't take it, don't give it.
And so the world is dominated and cowed into fearful submission by a group of fanatics with no morals nor concern for human life and human rights?
I couldn't have described the Bush administration better if I had three weeks and a team of professionals to help me...
-Dominated: You bully people into doing what you want. You even say you think robbing people of their resources is fine (fuller rebuttal below).
-Fearful submission: While I dislike referencing Michael Moore (His work is full of holes), Fahrenheit 9/11 covers the point I'd make here nicely.
-Group of fanatics: No way to say this tactfully. Dubya is a christian fundamentalist.
-No morals: Illegal invasions and subjagation here we come!
-No concern for human rights: Guantanemo Bay. Internation Rights of the Child.
1) Islam- Pakistan is in fact our strongest supporter (the Saudis have been increasingly reluctant in their dealings with us, while the Pakistanis have captured quite a few Al Qaeda terrorists).
So? The House of Saud still funds all your top politicians. Funds can be a lose term for bribe, in this case.
2) WMDs or NBCs... whatever... can you honestly say that Saddam was not planning to build at least one type of them? He'd already used chemical weapons in his wars with the Kurds and Iran, so we know he had the potential to unleash even more of them against his other enemies. Removing him was essential... even if we had waited until a few years later, he would still have been a menace to the global community, and would need to go. Now, did we do things "legitimatly?" That's an opinion question, just like "do the ends justify the means?"
The NBCs Saddam Hussein used on the Kurds were sold to him by America and Britian for use in the Iran-Iraq war. Never forget who created Saddam Hussein. We did.
3) Iraq is a war zone, but it is changing! I don't know for sure, but I believe there have already been elections.... if not they'll come soon.
Changing, hm? We'll see. Nothing has changed so far. The appointal of an interim government changed precisely nothing.
4) About the Ayatollah- first of all, he only held off al-Sadr... he didn't support the U.S. Seconly, he's a SHI'ITE Muslim, while the majority are Sunnis. Do you think the Shi'ites, who gained many rights when the U.S. occupied and Saddam was kicked out, would complain?
He reasoned with al-Sadr in the only way possible... appealing to his Religion. America could only have solved that issue through storming the Shrine. Hooray for unilateral action, hm?
6) War over resources, in my opinion, is justified.
And, because you're the biggest and the baddest, you can bully anyone you want for them! Wow, that works out brilliantly for you! Want some Crack? Invade Columbia! Need cheap Vodka? Bye bye Russia!
If you think like that, you will only stop the illegal, immoral, and downright asinine invasions when the whole world is run from Washington D.C. Is this what you want?[/size]
maybe that's because of the inaction of every other major power in the world. Other countries are not inferior, just unwilling. There's a big difference.
Other countires do not take action because they do not think action is necessary, yes? So... one country thinks action is necessary... and 150 don't... but because the 1 is huge, and likes bullying people, it does what it wants anyway. Yay for democracy?
Do you know what sarcasm is? We are the most advanced nation. Europe would be nothing without the U.S. WE rebuilt your continent after WWII, lifting you out of certain depression/communism, WE continue to provide military and economic aid to you, WE are trying to PROTECT you, and all you can do is spit on us!?!? Show some gratitude!
[/b]
Yes, you funded rebuilding after WW2. Whee. That was 60 years ago, you had a different government, there was a different world climate, you had a more isolationist government.
YOU are trying to PROTECT YOU. YOU are trying to DO WHAT YOU WANT. You are DOING WHAT
YOU WANT. It cannot be proved either way that 9/11 would've been an isolated incident if America hadn't responded in the way it did, but I like to think that if you'd acted with a little more tact, the Bali bombings etc would not have ocurred, and America would not be over a thousand servicemen short.
But, hey, thats probably just pointless optomism.
9) I agree, the U.S. should be abiding by Kyoto, and should accept more UN decisions, but considering how we view the UN as a waste of our time at this current point, we have little incentive to do so.
How's this for a paradox? The U.N is a joke because the USA makes it a joke. And the USA won't get involved because the U.N is a joke. Time for the USA to get involved, and stop being a Global Bully, and start being a Global Role Model. Be Nice. Negotiate. Help clean the planet up, and abide to humanitarian treaties. No more breaking of international law, hm?
