![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As you say the U.S was the strongest free world nation post WW2. However, based on their actions, the only way they seem compelled to "police" is to eliminate any goverments that they deem hostile (to them not the people or the world as a whole) and replace it, or rather attempt to replace it, with a democracy. (Thought it could also be debated that the reasoning behind this was the Cold War. If this were used in an argument, I would point out that if you're going to police the world, you shouldn't really be involved in a conflict with another nation of ideologies [whether the conflict is 'hot' or 'cold' is irrevelant]) One prime example of this is Vietnam. I believe they are still a communist, rather socialist, country today. Are they a threat to America? No, I don't believe they are. All I'm saying is, yes it's awesome that America took up the mantle for global peace and the like. But if it enforces this peace selectively, then the whole purpose is defeated right from the get go. Cheers! Krauter |
Quote:
|
Some opinions from just-a-kid-who-doesn't-really-know-a-crap-about-this
Would Saddam have done any hostile actions against US? I don't think so, it requires some balls and damn big army, even if I hate to say so as I'm so sick and tired of that american patriotism (which suddenly seems to disappear when you talk about wars...). Was Bush there to liberate the region from mass destruction weapons, chemical weapons and one dangerous dictator? I don't think so, 9/11 just gave everyone huge phobia against muslims and as US had fought there before why not do go again when you have a reason? Well what was Bush doing there then? Think about it, USA has worlds (second?) largest coal reserves but there is something that is more valuable and what Iraq has. No it's not nukes or gas weapons. It's oil. If everything would have gone like planned USA would now be able to decide the cost of an oil barrel like Arabs do now. Would have done good to their finances. Saddam was just in wrong place at a wrong time and doing wrong thing, world thought that Bush was good nice guy who hung a crazy dictator, he just didn't thought about who is going to lead the nation next, there wasn't any such powerful faction to take over the (non existing) government as Saddam had removed all such threats from existence. Now USA is there, trying to keep the country stable, which is hard, just like in Afghanistan. Normal Iraqians don't like you out there, you wouldn't like Iraqians walking with guns and driving tanks in your own home cities, and it causes problems. And as the government barely exists anyone who has a few friends could go and take over it and do less or more nice things. First you went there to conquer the place, now you're there to keep the place not falling into anarchy, doesn't sound like a war anymore. Don't take this as an insult but as United States of America is still such young nation (if you compare to some Iraq for example, as they've been there for thousands of years doing whatever they want) you have so great love towards your country as you had to fight for it to liberate it from Brits "just a moment ago". And as your continent didn't have much people back then everyone is a grand children of one of those patriots. Take a leadership of a very powerful nation, add some of that patriotism, a bit of bad luck and 9/11. You don't think twice anymore if you have a chance to pay it back. Bush just attacked wrong people, all muslims don't hate USA, it just happens that there was an american who hates all muslims. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.