... rug... if we were in a war against Islam, how is Pakistan our strongest ally?
Actually, its Saudi Arabia. I didn't say you were at war with Islam, I said it was closer to the truth. Read the words.
the evil madman, Saddam, is gone, the world is safe from his plans to build WMD
The one piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented for Iraq having a nuclear weapons program, is their order for aluminum tubes with an adonized coating, which Colin says could be used to make gas centrifuges for synthesizing enriched uranium.
1, The tubes were the wrong size for centrifuges.
2, If you wanted to use these tube for centrifuges, the very first you'd have to do is... can you guess?
Mill off the adonized coating.
No evidence of any other type of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical. WMD is not the correct term.) weapon has been found, either.
So, no, I don't think they were developing a nuke. If they were, no credible evidence has been put forward by your government.
with a bit of luck and some strong support we'll finally have the first democratic Islamic state!
Whup de do? This is another case of you 'solving' other people problems. Currently, Iraq is a warzone. You cannot have a democracy in a warzone. Iraq is going to remain a warzone for the forseeable future.
...why we aren't progressing in Iraq as projected, all these Islamic countries who pay us lip service and secretly support anti-US groups
And you say you're not anti-Islam?
Er... what?
The frickin Grand Ayatollah had to solve a problem that America started, in laying siege to Muktadr al Sadr's forces. He is, as you may guess by his title,
the most senior cleric in Shiite Islam. So, yeah, all the powerful Muslim leaders are opposing you...
The surrounding countries are not a reason for your shortfalls in enforcing security in the country you illegally conquered.You may try to blame them, but, frankly, your reasoning there sounds like a half-assed attempt to justify the upcoming war in Iran...
I will admit that the US's foreign policy decisions are based on the country's needs and desires (i.e. oil, trading partners, resources, etc) BUT..... what country does not use their foreign policy to make their territory more sucessful.
Foreign policy should always be based on your countries needs. To, and this is the important bit,
a certain extent. Big type bit!
War over resources can never be justified to any decent human being.You CANNOT goto war over oil! Invading Iraq does not make America a paragon of justice and light in the world, because you ousted a despicable dictator. It makes you a Global Bully, who is quite prepared to invade other nations because they have something you want. And I imagine ol' Dubya would cry and throw his toys out of the pram if he doesn't get what he wants.
The U.N. is ineffective because it is full of politicians from weak and old countries who do nothing but sit and debate, while accomplishing NOTHING. The U.S. acts only because the U.N. refuses to do so! Speaking of which, when was the last sucessful U.N. operation? Israel? No. Bosnia? No. Iraq? No.
Kosovo. If you're only counting ones that have more or less come to a conclusion.
Weak and old countries? So, you think the US is fully qualified to invade anyone it feels like... because it has less than 300 years of history?
Perhaps you've heard the term 'respect your elders' ? No useful action will ever come from unilateral actions. Reform will come through negotiation, and negotioation cannot occur if Americans like yourself regard other countries as inferior.
Which is what you just said.
Oops.
I'd like to see how the western world held up without U.S. support. We'll withdraw all our troops from NATO countries (but *gasp* they're providing much needed revenue for those nations, especially Germany), we'll stop sending financial aid to a majority of the world, we'll stop fighting maniacal leaders like Kim Jong-Il and see how long peace and stability remains!
That isn't necessary, though. You just need to stop shitting on the treaties you've signed, and the agreements that are in force, that say who you can and cannot invade. This is determined by the U.N, not America. If America does not like this, they should join the three or four banana republics who are not U.N members.
On a side note, America isn't actually a party to several world agreements... like the Kyoto convention... and the International Rights of the Child... so maybe they have an excuse for not caring.
1Nah.
Oh, and finally, while the U.S. is not superior to other nations, it does have the strongest military, most advanced science and medical programs, the largest economy out of any country, and is the only superpower remaining in the world.
Your whole tone suggests otherwise. Saying you're not superior doesn't mean you don't believe it.
READ WHAT YOU WRITE, FOR FUCKS SAKE.You sound like you're boasting about the superpower thing.. why? Does this world need a superpower? No. The only reason to have a superpower is to hold another in check... and as America is the only one, there is no reason to have all those weapons and NBCs of yours...
Three words for Dubya to look at, and take in:
START. Three. Treaty.[/size]
21, One of two countires in the U.N, in the case of the International Rights of the Child. The other is Somalia, I believe. The USA also produces the most greenhouse gases of any industrialised nation, with perhaps the exception of China (I don't have up to date numbers). So not being party to the Kyoto convetion is a big deal.
2, START is the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons De-Proliferation treaty. 
