Choumichel wrote:
+1
unions are singlehandedly strangling every industry they are involved in, it's a good theory, but in practice they are just as bloated and greedy, I take it you've never had to work with a union, and if people work and earn their living they don't need social programs
what's AP?
what's AP?
My answer,
We screwed up Iraq early with supporting Saddam with CIA. (Also for the leaving the Iraqi people high and dry after the first Gulf War). We owe them something.
The problem of trying to standardize anything like Higher Education and Health Care is that every state in the US is different. It will be a beauracratic nightmate to instal and maintain a nationally run system (as it is already).
Just my 2 cents
We screwed up Iraq early with supporting Saddam with CIA. (Also for the leaving the Iraqi people high and dry after the first Gulf War). We owe them something.
The problem of trying to standardize anything like Higher Education and Health Care is that every state in the US is different. It will be a beauracratic nightmate to instal and maintain a nationally run system (as it is already).
Just my 2 cents
Sorry, the first Iaqi War was a UN coalitionjoewardog wrote:
My answer,
We screwed up Iraq early with supporting Saddam with CIA. (Also for the leaving the Iraqi people high and dry after the first Gulf War). We owe them something.
We didnt leave anyone " High and Dry " taking your cues from george cloony perhaps? find better souces.
In my life I have been in the Teamsters, IBEW, CWA ( 3 unions ) they do make it hard to get rid of dead wood.kr@cker wrote:
unions are singlehandedly strangling every industry they are involved in, it's a good theory, but in practice they are just as bloated and greedy, I take it you've never had to work with a union, and if people work and earn their living they don't need social programs
what's AP?
But in each one about 99% of us gave 100%.
But it has been my experience that some people need supervision. You can pay the 8 or 40 bucks an hour.
They produce when supervised well. Some people need to be lead.
At one time I employed 15 full time people. I found that making them feel like an essential part of a team worked best. Most people will work if just out of boredom, but to excel they need a visible, tangible and achievable goal.
Alrighty, you want sources.Horseman 77 wrote:
Sorry, the first Iaqi War was a UN coalitionjoewardog wrote:
My answer,
We screwed up Iraq early with supporting Saddam with CIA. (Also for the leaving the Iraqi people high and dry after the first Gulf War). We owe them something.
We didnt leave anyone " High and Dry " taking your cues from george cloony perhaps? find better souces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war#Troop_deployment
550,000 troops were from the US. Despite the fact that it was a UN coalition, who did most of the fighting?
Furthermore,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … ge=printer
(This is from a guy on the ground when it happened in 2001, btw)
We (USA) called for a revolt against Saddam (who we helped with money and military aid before the Gulf War) but did not have the balls to back them up.
Now, Webster dictionary defines the term "High and Dry" as
"2 : being in a helpless or abandoned position."
(http://www.webster.com/dictionary/high%20and%20dry)
Shiites and Kurds were left in a helpless and abandoned position after the Gulf War and hence were slaughtered. Hence, the US owes the Iraqi people something.
Now where are your Sources?
Being a former member of the Steelworkers I agree with Horseman's observations. The problem I see now though is that the US is moving too much into a service of industry economy. This is leaving some unions "high and dry" so to speakHorseman 77 wrote:
At one time I employed 15 full time people. I found that making them feel like an essential part of a team worked best. Most people will work if just out of boredom, but to excel they need a visible, tangible and achievable goal.
It is all about evolving to survive.
So the USA does all of the fighting for the UN, I didnt need to research that, you did ?joewardog wrote:
Alrighty, you want sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war#Troop_deployment
550,000 troops were from the US. Despite the fact that it was a UN coalition, who did most of the fighting?
So we thought they might want to overthrow their own dictator? It has happend. Bush did not have the support of Either House. Good luck trying to get that done. You do realize Bush was voted out of office shortly after gulf War 1. When we do over throw him everyone bitches. No win situation some one always whines.joewardog wrote:
Furthermore,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … ge=printer
(This is from a guy on the ground when it happened in 2001, btw)
We (USA) called for a revolt against Saddam (who we helped with money and military aid before the Gulf War) but did not have the balls to back them up.
I dont need sources I was alive back then.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-15 17:55:16)
Yes, I was alive back then too.
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. This whole thread is asking why the US is dumping money over there (in Iraq predominantly). What I'm offering are a few valid reasons/justifications for rebuilding Iraq (since we screwed it up in the first place).
More importantly for this discussion, I'm curious as to your stance on Iraq currently, should we keep trying to rebuild their infrastructure or just pull out completely? (and why)
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. This whole thread is asking why the US is dumping money over there (in Iraq predominantly). What I'm offering are a few valid reasons/justifications for rebuilding Iraq (since we screwed it up in the first place).
The reason I rose that point was to allude to the fact that US does not do all the fighting for the UN, but US uses the UN for justification of its fighting.Horseman 77 wrote:
So the USA does all of the fighting for the UN, I didnt need to research that, you did ?
Those facts I'm not disputing. Apparently politics was the reason nothing was done in 2001, Furthermore, I do agree with you about why Everyone whines (the whole Reason this thread got started was someone was bitch'n).Horseman 77 wrote:
So we thought they might want to overthrow their own dictator? It has happend. Bush did not have the support of Either House. Good luck trying to get that done. You do realize Bush was voted out of office shortly after gulf War 1. When we do over throw him everyone bitches. No win situation some one always whines.
More importantly for this discussion, I'm curious as to your stance on Iraq currently, should we keep trying to rebuild their infrastructure or just pull out completely? (and why)
Last edited by joewardog (2006-07-15 18:40:31)
Just had to insert a "LOL!" here for the earlier posts saying that everyone liked the USA when clinton was in office. Didn't the world trade center get bombed when he was in office? Or have I possibly skipped into parallel dimension, in which this never occured.
yeah i seem to rembember pics of parade floats at mardig gras showing bill clinton humping the statue of liberty too
1 Lebanon Actually has not been cause to any attacks on Isreals soil if it's a terrorist organization that is Funded by Syria or Iran then it should be Syria or Iran that sould be attacked.whittsend wrote:
Which countries are you referring to, and have any of the countries in question not been the origin of an attack on Israeli soil?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well actually right now they're going everywhere invading a bunch of different country's but ehhh.It continues to fail to be a successful analogy if they can't do it successfully.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Ok well then if American Indians kicked you out of your home? even though it's been "white, for a lack of better term" for more then 200 years?There are two routes to a claim on land. One is Historical occupation. The other is conquest. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have legitimate claims to the territory under both routes. The Israelis, however, have one leg up over any other claimant: They are there now, and nobody is going to dislodge them.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Actually I think the katrina referance was a little more acurate because technically that's the holey land for most of the major religions today.
Once again: The sooner this is accepted, the sooner we can have a resolution.They all do, but only Israel is in a position to enforce that claim. So, can we get past questioning whether they should be there, and accept that they are there?cpt.fass1 wrote:
So who has claim on it?Many of them did go back to their native land after the holocaust: that land is Israel.cpt.fass1 wrote:
no one can really say why didn't the Jews go back to their native land after the holocast?
2 It could be succesfully done, they could relocate you for numerious reasons even though you own the deed to the land it's still government controlled and if they needed you to move they would move you. So just answer the how would you feel question stop saying it couldn't happen cause anything can happen.
3 Isreal is by far not the best neighbor to have I never hear of programs of them helping out there neighborhood countries. So attacks on Isreal are not out of the question because the Arab nation is trying to up root them.
4. Native land meaning the land that they were uprooted from, not the land they didn't have a claim on at that time. If all 3 million Jews where living in Isreal at the time before WWII there would have already been an Isreal.
I definatly wasn't "Bitching" I was pointing out how much of our government funding is wasted in other country's...joewardog wrote:
Yes, I was alive back then too.
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. This whole thread is asking why the US is dumping money over there (in Iraq predominantly). What I'm offering are a few valid reasons/justifications for rebuilding Iraq (since we screwed it up in the first place).The reason I rose that point was to allude to the fact that US does not do all the fighting for the UN, but US uses the UN for justification of its fighting.Horseman 77 wrote:
So the USA does all of the fighting for the UN, I didnt need to research that, you did ?Those facts I'm not disputing. Apparently politics was the reason nothing was done in 2001, Furthermore, I do agree with you about why Everyone whines (the whole Reason this thread got started was someone was bitch'n).Horseman 77 wrote:
So we thought they might want to overthrow their own dictator? It has happend. Bush did not have the support of Either House. Good luck trying to get that done. You do realize Bush was voted out of office shortly after gulf War 1. When we do over throw him everyone bitches. No win situation some one always whines.
More importantly for this discussion, I'm curious as to your stance on Iraq currently, should we keep trying to rebuild their infrastructure or just pull out completely? (and why)
I belive that we should allowe Iraq's to rebuild it's own infrastructioni and we should worry about our own. I'm saying pull the troops out now, and let the Iraq people decide what they want to do with there country. And give them support if they ask for it.
Alright, before I begin I have a problem with people who believe that throwing money at a problem is going to solve it. Yes US money is being spent all over the world (just look at how much we give to the UN or even the Palestinians). Yet, money is also spent within the US and where has this money ever truly solved the problems?cpt.fass1 wrote:
I belive that we should allowe Iraq's to rebuild it's own infrastructioni and we should worry about our own. I'm saying pull the troops out now, and let the Iraq people decide what they want to do with there country. And give them support if they ask for it.
Now considering you used the terms "we" and "our" I'll take that you're an American and you need to review our history again.
I have problems with your first post where you attacked supposed pro-Iraqi war supporters because they are "against our government improving our lives?" One of the important principles of being an American is for you the individual American to improve your own lot in life. For example, my generation, despite its apathetic attitude towards politics, has spent more time volunteering than any other generation.
Governments are corrupt. Why put your FAITH in one?
Now back to the present, the biggest problem is by focusing on our needs we have to get involved in world affairs. If not, America will stifle.
Someone coined the term Pax Americana. Basicly it's a play off of Pax Britannica and Pax Romanica (sorry I don't feel like getting the correct Latin spellings). It translates into Peace of America, Peace of Britain, and Peace of Rome respectively. For the US to progress and maintain its status, we need a stable world.
DISCLAIMER, Now Iraq is an interesting case but I am not arguing whether the invasion was justified or not so please don't respond and go down that route.
What I want to point out is that because of the invasion of Iraq, Liberia gave up on its nuclear weapons program (and all the tech and hardware they managed to scrape together). Now look back at American policy and you will see that set in events that destabilized Iraq, should it then not put it back together and set an example for the rest of the world?
A country that allows an attack from its soil against another country is subject to attack from that country. The fact that the forces doing the attacking are not subject to the control of the state from which they are attacking does not render them untouchable. It is perfectly permissable under international law to attack those who have attacked you, even across international borders. Allowing these attacks to occur implies complicity, or a lack of control. Either way, counter-attack is justified. To say that forces perpetrating an attack originating in Lebanon are not subject to a retaliatory strike from Israel is preposterous. All states may defend themselves from attackers.cpt.fass1 wrote:
1 Lebanon Actually has not been cause to any attacks on Isreals soil if it's a terrorist organization that is Funded by Syria or Iran then it should be Syria or Iran that sould be attacked.
You are missing my point. As I said before, there are two possible ways to legitimize holding territory. One is historical possession, the other is conquest. When the native Americans are able to conquer their land back, they will satisfy both, just like the Jews in Israel (It isn't necessary to satisfy both, but it's nice when you can). If they were able to take it and hold it, my opinion would be immaterial. Over time their claim would have to be recognized if I were unable to take my territory back by force. Until that time, it's a moot point.cpt.fass1 wrote:
2 It could be succesfully done, they could relocate you for numerious reasons even though you own the deed to the land it's still government controlled and if they needed you to move they would move you. So just answer the how would you feel question stop saying it couldn't happen cause anything can happen.
That is among the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Do you think it is reasonable for them to financially assist countries which have, within the lifetime of many, if not most, Israelis, have engaged upon several wars designed to destroy them? Even now the populations of most of their neighbors (if not their governments) still wish for the destruction of Israel. Your own post suggests that Israel should render assistance, even as those you claim they should assist endeavour to destroy them. To suggest that Israel is bound to assist them is not reasonable, and indicates a lack of critical thought on the subject.cpt.fass1 wrote:
3 Isreal is by far not the best neighbor to have I never hear of programs of them helping out there neighborhood countries. So attacks on Isreal are not out of the question because the Arab nation is trying to up root them.
They did have a claim on it at the time. They have always had a claim to it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
4. Native land meaning the land that they were uprooted from, not the land they didn't have a claim on at that time. If all 3 million Jews where living in Isreal at the time before WWII there would have already been an Isreal.
If you believe that the claim to Israel of Jews who were not born there is not legitimate, then conversely you must believe that the claim of Palestinian refugees who were not born there (which would be most of them, by now) is not legitimate either. You can play these games all day, but your twisted logic will always come back to bite you.
I know that throwing money at a problem isn't going to fix it and that's all where are doing right now is throwing more and more money at a problem that's getting greater and greater. IMO we need to back off of Iraq right now and let them grow as a people, "freedom" has never been something that has been given, they need to set it up themselves.joewardog wrote:
Alright, before I begin I have a problem with people who believe that throwing money at a problem is going to solve it. Yes US money is being spent all over the world (just look at how much we give to the UN or even the Palestinians). Yet, money is also spent within the US and where has this money ever truly solved the problems?cpt.fass1 wrote:
I belive that we should allowe Iraq's to rebuild it's own infrastructioni and we should worry about our own. I'm saying pull the troops out now, and let the Iraq people decide what they want to do with there country. And give them support if they ask for it.
Now considering you used the terms "we" and "our" I'll take that you're an American and you need to review our history again.
I have problems with your first post where you attacked supposed pro-Iraqi war supporters because they are "against our government improving our lives?" One of the important principles of being an American is for you the individual American to improve your own lot in life. For example, my generation, despite its apathetic attitude towards politics, has spent more time volunteering than any other generation.
Governments are corrupt. Why put your FAITH in one?
Now back to the present, the biggest problem is by focusing on our needs we have to get involved in world affairs. If not, America will stifle.
Someone coined the term Pax Americana. Basicly it's a play off of Pax Britannica and Pax Romanica (sorry I don't feel like getting the correct Latin spellings). It translates into Peace of America, Peace of Britain, and Peace of Rome respectively. For the US to progress and maintain its status, we need a stable world.
DISCLAIMER, Now Iraq is an interesting case but I am not arguing whether the invasion was justified or not so please don't respond and go down that route.
What I want to point out is that because of the invasion of Iraq, Liberia gave up on its nuclear weapons program (and all the tech and hardware they managed to scrape together). Now look back at American policy and you will see that set in events that destabilized Iraq, should it then not put it back together and set an example for the rest of the world?
So what you saying is that we need to build up the rest of the world first and then work on our country?
I wasn't bashing anyone I'm really interested in finding mindsets of people who are against lets say "Universal healthcare" but for the rebuilding of Iraq. The war in Iraq is over it's time to bring alot of soldiers(and by all means not all) home and let them police themselves, if we don't they're going to resent us.
And I'm all for Less Government alot less government that's why the "war on terror" scares the fuck out of me. It reminds me of the I Robot, sooner of later the government is going to decide going outside you might die and everyone has to stay inside(don't take that seriously it was added for effect).
I want to retort this as neutral as I can in spirit of debate. First I would never say almost every American is Pro-war and for the invasion in Iraq. In fact I could honestly say if you were to divide the country up between those that are for and those that are against it, both divisions would be near equal. It is a shaky debate with no clear right or wrong answers amongst everyone in America and even among its military who of all people would know more than anyone else. As for your reference to a culture that will never accept our way of life, I would like to say that I KNOW PEOPLE that thank God (or Allah) every day for our pressence there and pray for our victory. They love American Pop culture (mainly music by Brittany Spears believe it or not). I can also tell you from a reliable source that even Saddam Hussein is a huge Dorrito lover. Also remember the outcome of the first Iraqi elections. We can't even get that outcome in most democratic countries. If you are basing your opinions on the media, DON'T. From my standpoint, the media has lied more about this crisis than the government has believe it or not. They would say things like in a recent poll, 90% of Iraqi's disaprove of U.S's pressence in Iraq blah blah blah", where it leads you to ask, WHO the fuck went door to door asking Iraqi's across the friggin hotzones?cpt.fass1 wrote:
I'm going to try to make this as neutral as I can.
Why is it that almost all the American's who are prowar and for rebuilding a country in the middle east are against our government improving our lives? We could be building better school and giving away higher education, health care plans, or dumping more money into our privatly owned companies(this is going to bring great flaming). So why are we throwing money into a culture that will never accept our way of life and who are taught to hate the west because we formed a country that they never wantted in the middle of their culture? Now I really want to know the mind set of the people who think this "war on Terror" is a great idea, please no flaming.
Under the guise of Freedom we bring war to an other country, the terrorist could say the same exact thing. They could say that they were trying to destroy our financle instutions to make all american's debt free which would technically make us free, Right?
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves, look at the clinton years we had so many more allies.
Your point about blowing up financial institutions was way out. I'm not even sure if you were even serious about it, so I won't bring up many retorts, I'll just simplify it in one: THEY'VE PREEMPTIVELY KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
Finally I agree with your point on the fact that no one asked America to police the world but as much as people would hate me for saying this, "The world NEEDS America to police the world." Ever since the end of WWII and especially the end of the Cold War, there's always been one lingering thought going through every evil dictator, warlard, etc: "Will America intervene?" If we haven't shown active participation in other country's affairs, men like Kim Jong Il would've already made Nukes and launched them at South Korea, Russia, and Japan. If we did not reconstruct the Japanese constitution the Imperialist Japan would've rose again. Adid in Somalia would've gotten away with using famine as his war weapon. Saddam Hussein would've gotten away with invading Kuwait and spreading his genocide to another country and seizing control of OPEC (he would've moved onto Saudi Arabia then his mortal enemies Iran). We would be paying $10 bucks a gallon by 1995 if we didn't butt in. When you think back, the 1990's would've been hell on earth if it weren't for America's active participation in maintaining what it felt was right at the time. So excuse America if it fucks up. How about some other country step up to the plate (having thankful minding for you guys from UK, Australia, S. Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, Sweden, etc...)
PS If we pull out now, the insurgency will sky rocket. We pose a bigger deterrance to the insurgency than the local military and police. I refer you to my last point. It happened in the fall of Saigon during Vietnam. We beat NVA to a cease fire but the moment we left they came storming the south knowing that once we leave, there's no turning back.
Last edited by Asianwaste (2006-07-18 17:58:09)
I just want to say, I never really supported invading Iraq. I believe Iran and NK are and were much bigger threats than Iraq ever was. However, I am all for getting Iraq rebuilt. We basically went into that country, and destroyed almost all the infrustructure. I say we can't leave till we get the infrustructure back to pre-invasion levels minimum. How you would like it if I came into you home, and destroyed all your furniture, appliances, and broke in a few walls, and then just leave, and say, "hey sorry man, I can't really help you put all that back together, oh well, you've got the resources to handle this on your own." I've always believed in finishing the job you started, and cleaning your own mess.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I wasn't bashing anyone I'm really interested in finding mindsets of people who are against lets say "Universal healthcare" but for the rebuilding of Iraq. The war in Iraq is over it's time to bring alot of soldiers(and by all means not all) home and let them police themselves, if we don't they're going to resent us.
I'm always astonded that people automatically expect something from there governments, like healthcare, social security, or help with housing. Why do you feel that the government should help you with anything, beyond basic national security, local policing, and filling in the gaps where private business can't make a profit (like major highways and roads). Social Security has always bothered me. It's basically the government saying I'm too dumb to provide for my own retirement, and that it's going to take my money and do it for me.
I can't understand why anyone would ever trust a government, anywhere. Historically all governments become corrupt, and I see no reason why modern governments wouldn't (if they haven't already) become corrupt. The easiest solution to prevent corruption, or at least minimize it's impact, is to keep government as small as possible, and limit it's control over your life.
I really wish the US didn't have to be the world police, but i don't see any other country willing to take the job. The idea that the UN can do it is a joke, the UN would deliberate for 3 weeks on deciding wheter it wanted single or double ply toilet paper to whipe it's own ass, let alone be willing to commit to a military solution when needed. The UN is just a bunch of beurecrats who are always trying to do there damndest to avoid being responsible for anything. I also have a serious problem with some of the UN's policies. I find it amazing that the US seems to be the only country that still has an intact concept of freedom of speach. European countries have laws against speaking things which may be inflamatory in nature. The US has no such laws, but the UN wants the US to have such laws. I could go on about UN policies that take away freedom from individuals all day long. If I ever see UN troops on US soil, I'm gonna be aiming for blue helmets.
I hope that gives you a little insight cpt.fass1, if you've got questions, please feel free to ask.
we gave Germany 8 years of support and rebuilt them We did even more for Japan, Then we protected them for as long as they asked, are not these people worthy, if not why ?cpt.fass1 wrote:
I definatly wasn't "Bitching" I was pointing out how much of our government funding is wasted in other country's...joewardog wrote:
Yes, I was alive back then too.
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. This whole thread is asking why the US is dumping money over there (in Iraq predominantly). What I'm offering are a few valid reasons/justifications for rebuilding Iraq (since we screwed it up in the first place).The reason I rose that point was to allude to the fact that US does not do all the fighting for the UN, but US uses the UN for justification of its fighting.Horseman 77 wrote:
So the USA does all of the fighting for the UN, I didnt need to research that, you did ?Those facts I'm not disputing. Apparently politics was the reason nothing was done in 2001, Furthermore, I do agree with you about why Everyone whines (the whole Reason this thread got started was someone was bitch'n).Horseman 77 wrote:
So we thought they might want to overthrow their own dictator? It has happend. Bush did not have the support of Either House. Good luck trying to get that done. You do realize Bush was voted out of office shortly after gulf War 1. When we do over throw him everyone bitches. No win situation some one always whines.
More importantly for this discussion, I'm curious as to your stance on Iraq currently, should we keep trying to rebuild their infrastructure or just pull out completely? (and why)
I belive that we should allowe Iraq's to rebuild it's own infrastructioni and we should worry about our own. I'm saying pull the troops out now, and let the Iraq people decide what they want to do with there country. And give them support if they ask for it.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-21 14:34:31)
The reason is in majority of your cloths and everything you probably use, try to find something that says Made in America that actually uses stuff made in america...
You do realize that Al-Qaeda flourished during Clintons administration? They attacked us repeatedly. The media never likes to portray Clinton as causing terrorism, bad relations, or destroying the economy; some shallow analysis will prove otherwise. What I'm saying is, the media has told you that we had more friends, that doesn't make it true.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves, look at the Clinton years we had so many more allies.
America walks a fine edge. If we do nothing then we're criticized for keeping our wealth to ourselves; being selfish. If we do act then we have to deal with another myriad of accusations. There is a saying for this:: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
P.S. We are asked, frequently, to police the world. What, do you think Europe would do it?
Im not going to read Any further, I will say this though. You say NOBODY has ever asked the USA to police the world? What news channels do you watch? Really now, How many countries are yelling for us to get involved in the conflict now going on in Isreal? Just about everyone. So please, Your question started out fine until i stumbled apon that statement, thus making the question null and Void. Sorrycpt.fass1 wrote:
I'm going to try to make this as neutral as I can.
Why is it that almost all the American's who are prowar and for rebuilding a country in the middle east are against our government improving our lives? We could be building better school and giving away higher education, health care plans, or dumping more money into our privatly owned companies(this is going to bring great flaming). So why are we throwing money into a culture that will never accept our way of life and who are taught to hate the west because we formed a country that they never wantted in the middle of their culture? Now I really want to know the mind set of the people who think this "war on Terror" is a great idea, please no flaming.
Under the guise of Freedom we bring war to an other country, the terrorist could say the same exact thing. They could say that they were trying to destroy our financle instutions to make all american's debt free which would technically make us free, Right?
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves, look at the clinton years we had so many more allies.
9-11 happened because Clinton was more interested in being nice than doing the right thing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves, look at the clinton years we had so many more allies.
"TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE"cpt.fass1 wrote:
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves.
Well considering that Isreal is funded by America and destroying an infastuctor of a country that might have let Isreal police the south for hezbollah it's not a crazy notion, also they're not asking for a policing as they are for a stance for a cease fire. Policing would mean we send troops into the country to keep the peace, having our president call for a cease fire isn't a bad idea.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Im not going to read Any further, I will say this though. You say NOBODY has ever asked the USA to police the world? What news channels do you watch? Really now, How many countries are yelling for us to get involved in the conflict now going on in Isreal? Just about everyone. So please, Your question started out fine until i stumbled apon that statement, thus making the question null and Void. Sorrycpt.fass1 wrote:
I'm going to try to make this as neutral as I can.
Why is it that almost all the American's who are prowar and for rebuilding a country in the middle east are against our government improving our lives? We could be building better school and giving away higher education, health care plans, or dumping more money into our privatly owned companies(this is going to bring great flaming). So why are we throwing money into a culture that will never accept our way of life and who are taught to hate the west because we formed a country that they never wantted in the middle of their culture? Now I really want to know the mind set of the people who think this "war on Terror" is a great idea, please no flaming.
Under the guise of Freedom we bring war to an other country, the terrorist could say the same exact thing. They could say that they were trying to destroy our financle instutions to make all american's debt free which would technically make us free, Right?
Nobody has every asked the U.S.A. to police the world and they don't get angry at us when we keep to ourselves, look at the clinton years we had so many more allies.