how much can the USA get away with?
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
the fact that the US can do pretty much WHATEVER it wants, yet shows the restraint to not proves to me that we're a country based on good intentions. **** the rest IMO.
BurlySurly said:
thats a pathetic standard to define "good intentions".
just think of how many people can you kill without getting caught. the fact you dont do it, does that makes you a good person? or proves your good intentions??
but i was definately not waiting for anything else from BS nonetheless.
it proves you're not a killer i guess. the point is that all the far lefties saying crap about US imperialism is pretty much unfounded, we could really just go take Peru over if we wanted to, but we DONT because we arent Nazi germany or Stahlinist Russia or Scrote Fondling Canada.ALEXIS_DH said:
yeah, we with our freedom, comparitively healthy economy, massive manpower and sufficient resources should leave it in turmoil like we found it. Youre right.Toshi said:instead we have the restraint to only seek to reshape the entire middle east. oh. why didn't i see it that way?ink:
so we're not really hurting anything then. quit complaining.Toshi said:
you cant count all of those cause prolly a few at least had it coming.Toshi said:
Seriously though, I honestly believe we're TRYING to take a step in the right direction...which is better than sitting back and watching tribal leaders and dictators ruin people's **** all day long for fun and greed and power.
BurlySurly said:
I would believe that more of George Sr. than George Jr. I still think dubyah took office with full intention to avenge his daddy no matter what the cost. Some sort of pathetic self-validation type thing.
But when you depose/sanction regimes based on whether you like them or not then you are not showing much restraint.BurlySurly said:
Examples:
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Panama
Serbia
Cuba
And support others universally acknowledged as non-democratic and despotic;
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Chile (and many other Latin America states)
It doesn't look so damn philanthropic now does it?
fluff said:
I disagree.
so if we are so altruistic, why not go in and try to straighten out the myriad crises in various african countries? why focus on the middle east? the allure of the texas tea is too great?BurlySurly said:
BurlySurly said:
alright, key question here. WHO´s right direction???
i smell a sense of property of ultimate true somewhere.
I just mean in the general direction of basic peace and freedom for the entire world...not in the direction of personal greed as a people....or whatever.
preppie said:
How profound...
Imagine just how F'ed up the world would be without the US...
Just like it was before WWII and the emergence of the US as a super power eh...?LordOpie said:
LordOpie said:
Ah... good point... damn 'do-gooder' USA...
try this on your brains...
If the US hadnt enterd WW2, what would have become of Europe? Would the British have had the logistics and muscle to launch an invasion of the mainland?
NOOOO!!!!
If the US hadnt entered the war, and Russia was allowed to move across Europe like Stalin wanted to do, would the french be goosestepping today? YEESSSS!!!!
If the US had kept their noses out of Korea, would the UN have had the muscle to push back the Chinese AND the North Koreans?
NOOOOO!!!!
So maybe what we should be asking ourselves is "Do we really give a flying f**k about the rest of the world, and further more should we?" My opinion is that the free world should be kissing our asses for being a superpower. We kept the Soviets at bay and eventually kicked their asses. And as for Africa, they dont really offer us anything too important for us to go in and whip asses. Ever notice that it's only the countries that have strategic importance that get American backing? Damn hypocritical if you ask me.
If the US hadnt enterd WW2, what would have become of Europe? Would the British have had the logistics and muscle to launch an invasion of the mainland?
NOOOO!!!!
If the US hadnt entered the war, and Russia was allowed to move across Europe like Stalin wanted to do, would the french be goosestepping today? YEESSSS!!!!
If the US had kept their noses out of Korea, would the UN have had the muscle to push back the Chinese AND the North Koreans?
NOOOOO!!!!
So maybe what we should be asking ourselves is "Do we really give a flying f**k about the rest of the world, and further more should we?" My opinion is that the free world should be kissing our asses for being a superpower. We kept the Soviets at bay and eventually kicked their asses. And as for Africa, they dont really offer us anything too important for us to go in and whip asses. Ever notice that it's only the countries that have strategic importance that get American backing? Damn hypocritical if you ask me.
F'n selfish bastards...........why can't the US be everywhere at all times to save the world from itself?genpowell71 said:
neaky:As far as the rest of the world not kissing the USA's butt I kind of agree with you, but people fear power. And rightfully so, throughout history the kid with the most toys made havoc upon everyone else. The US is big enough that everyone else is worried when the BIG USA problem will rise. I don't think we are anywhere near that point that the rest of the world needs to worry about us like they do. Since we do go in and offer our muscle when it is needed....to assist others. Foreign aid ($$$ and food , etc.) we are almost ignored for what we do because it is expected. So we are under a heavy magnifying glass in what we do...because we are so big. I think we can handle it. When we do mess up it is all over the news....
I am pretty sure other nations never makes mistakes or has bad outcomes....they got this whole life thing figured out pretty much.
neaky:
"Do or do not, there is no try" ~ Yoda (Jedi Master)LordOpie said:
You are Mr quotes-a-lot today.
"Yeah, I am fresh out of quotes" ~ RhinofromWALordOpie said:
Like I said, we go to the rescue of those who can offer us something in return. One thing I am curious about is how George is going to hand over Iraq back to its people. I had the "pleasure" of spending 13 months there and I'm here to tell you that nothing is going to change. The police are useless, and the "new" army is just a bit better than sh*tty. So whats to stop all the militants from TAKING power back? Not a whole lot. Guns, bombs and rockets are so readily available, and the police dont have much in the line of heavy weapons, so right there, they're out gunned. I guess we'll see what happens at the end of the month.
There is nothing wrong with that! So what? The point? Is it hypocritical? No. If we did go in and risk much for those who have nothing to offer us, or would not, in any way for the trouble than that is foolish. Seems like giving a regions a chance to be free from a dictator like Saddam is in our best interests. Have we piliaged their oil fields for ourselves? No. Are we getting paid for it? No. Will a free Iraq become a thriving national partner? Who knows? Americans disslike Dictators like Saddam's removing him is generally seen as good for the World in our eyes. Do we get something from that? yes.genpowell71 said:
Asking for help from the UN?
Asking the US directly?
Rising up and getting tired of militant renagades blowing their sh!t up and going after them theirselves?
....just ideas.
I will say this.....
"IF" the deadline is met at the end of the month. It will be amazing. I mean what would be the odds something like that coulb be given a date like that and met? I would hate to have to predict it.
It will definately be interesting to see what happens in the next 7 or so days. I do beleive that we are handing over control of the country. Not pulling out every american troop....but I may be wrong.
Rhino
"IF" the deadline is met at the end of the month. It will be amazing. I mean what would be the odds something like that coulb be given a date like that and met? I would hate to have to predict it.
It will definately be interesting to see what happens in the next 7 or so days. I do beleive that we are handing over control of the country. Not pulling out every american troop....but I may be wrong.
Rhino
Every time when Europeans say something about the Afghanistan/Iraq war, you get the
same reply every time: we saved your ass in 1945…… .well that’s true and all Europeans
where and still are very thankful that the USA liberated us back then, but that was 1945 and
the USA foreign politics changed a lot since then.
So many ‘older’ Europeans get upset when some US kid mentions the WW II,
because it’s so easy to say “hey WE saved you, so you shut the hell up and let us do what we want to do”
Well we don’t, just because what’s happening right know is just plain wrong.
You may think that this whole war is “good” because you liberated the Iraqi’s from Saddam,
but the situation today is far from “good”…..and how does it come that the ‘reasons to attack Iraq’
aren’t correct anymore or manipulated items or just plain lies?
What about Afghanistan ? There where NEVER so many (foreign) terrorists as today, the Al Qaida members are scattered all over the world and they are still growing, well great job by the US.
I still don’t understand that people are supporting Bush and his ‘war against terrorism’.
You must be really ignorant or misinformed to follow a leader like G.W. Bush.
same reply every time: we saved your ass in 1945…… .well that’s true and all Europeans
where and still are very thankful that the USA liberated us back then, but that was 1945 and
the USA foreign politics changed a lot since then.
So many ‘older’ Europeans get upset when some US kid mentions the WW II,
because it’s so easy to say “hey WE saved you, so you shut the hell up and let us do what we want to do”
Well we don’t, just because what’s happening right know is just plain wrong.
You may think that this whole war is “good” because you liberated the Iraqi’s from Saddam,
but the situation today is far from “good”…..and how does it come that the ‘reasons to attack Iraq’
aren’t correct anymore or manipulated items or just plain lies?
What about Afghanistan ? There where NEVER so many (foreign) terrorists as today, the Al Qaida members are scattered all over the world and they are still growing, well great job by the US.
I still don’t understand that people are supporting Bush and his ‘war against terrorism’.
You must be really ignorant or misinformed to follow a leader like G.W. Bush.
Something to keep in mind:preppie said:
Bush is not a populist. Half the population loves him, the other half hates him. It's not the case that he enjoys wide support from a majority of the population.
Yes, I know. (Thank God)Silver said:
But what makes me nervous is that Bush 'won' the elections by 537 votes,
while there where 55.100 voters illegaly 'scrubbed' from the voter rolls --> Thanks to Katherine Harris and choicepoint/DBT. W.T.F. ?
Well in theory, even if half of the US voters hate him, he still can be "president" in 2005.
this scares me to be honest.
I hate to interrupt the US self-congratulation club but here are a few points for the more thoughtful of you to consider:
1. The US did not enter WWII to save Europe, but to save itself. Had Britain and Russia folded the US would have faced an enemy much stronger that the one it helped to defeat. A Nazi controlled Europe and a Japanese controlled Asia would have been too powerful for the US to defeat singlehandedly.
2. The US takes far more from the world, including developing countries, than it puts back. US aid is minimal compared to its GDP and is consistently tied to unfair trade agreements, dictated monetary policy and is almost always funded directly via US companies based in the recipient state.
3. The US military budget is 50% of the military budget of the entire planet.
4. The US has the biggest nuclear arsenal by far of any nation and remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger on another nation's soil. They US has also refused to rule out a 'first strike' nuclear policy.
5. The US has the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons.
6. The US wishes to militarise space.
7. The US refuses to ratify treaties outlawing landmines.
8. The US refuses to recognise the right to food as a basic human right.
9. The US is the only nation apart from Iraq to fail to ratify a UN treaty defending the human rights of children.
10. The US has a history of meddling in the politics of many other nations in the last fifty years, including deposing democratically elected governments.
11. The US carpet bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia killed 3 million civilians.
What can the US get away with? Pretty much whatever it wants.
Don't expect the rest of the world to like you or to believe the hype though.
1. The US did not enter WWII to save Europe, but to save itself. Had Britain and Russia folded the US would have faced an enemy much stronger that the one it helped to defeat. A Nazi controlled Europe and a Japanese controlled Asia would have been too powerful for the US to defeat singlehandedly.
2. The US takes far more from the world, including developing countries, than it puts back. US aid is minimal compared to its GDP and is consistently tied to unfair trade agreements, dictated monetary policy and is almost always funded directly via US companies based in the recipient state.
3. The US military budget is 50% of the military budget of the entire planet.
4. The US has the biggest nuclear arsenal by far of any nation and remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger on another nation's soil. They US has also refused to rule out a 'first strike' nuclear policy.
5. The US has the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons.
6. The US wishes to militarise space.
7. The US refuses to ratify treaties outlawing landmines.
8. The US refuses to recognise the right to food as a basic human right.
9. The US is the only nation apart from Iraq to fail to ratify a UN treaty defending the human rights of children.
10. The US has a history of meddling in the politics of many other nations in the last fifty years, including deposing democratically elected governments.
11. The US carpet bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia killed 3 million civilians.
What can the US get away with? Pretty much whatever it wants.
Don't expect the rest of the world to like you or to believe the hype though.
Oh you were done? Well allow me to retort...
1. Even if Germany had the resources to invade the US, they wouldnt have lasted very long. The second most important thing in a war is a good Logistical system. And by that I mean a way to bring supplies to the troops fighting and a way to repair damaged equipment. The Germans didnt have anything like that. When a tank was killed, it sat where it was. The Americans salvaged all they could and used it to fix other tanks and vehicles. And as for Russia, they outfought, outgunned, and out manuvered the Germans when they got back on the offensive. There was no way for the Germans to beat the russian winter or the resources the Russians had at their disposal. The germans might have had bigger tanks, but the Russian tanks were cheaper to make. Thus allowing more tanks to be built (I'm majoring in world history)
2. You got me on the foreign aide and policy thing. They do tend to be a bit unfair.
3. As for our military budget, being the best army in the world takes money to keep it the best. Being in the US army, I can say that I know where the money goes and how it's spent. No one, can keep pace with us technologically, logistaclly or tactically. It takes money to research new things and to train the soldiers to be razor sharp.
4. I think your just pissed off that we have more nukes than you do. But the SALT 2 treaty says that the US will only use nukes in a defensive nature. To use them offensivly would risk having the rest of the world gang up on us. Yes, we have more nukes than anyone, but when you start to add up the rest of the world, it tends to outweigh us by more than a bit.
5. Chemical weapons? I dont know why we have them, but I wish we'd get rid of them. I've seen the results of their use, and it aint nice.
6. As far as militarizing space goes, if we can develop lasers and put them in space, then nukes would be useless. Reagan saw that, so did Marge Thatcher.
7. If we find a landmine, we call the bombsquad and blow it up. As far as the defensive use, I'm all for it. We use them as a last ditch measure to keep us safe. Thats why we have bullets. Mines are a secondary thing to use. Besides, if you have to use mines to inflict damage, you're kind of an amatuer.
8. Witholding food? If they're trying to kill me, then damn right I'll refuse them food. We use that to weaken the "subject" so that he'll talk. Might not like it, but guess what? It works.
9. The human rights thing with the children, I wish we had one. I have 2 girls, and I hate it that they dont have one.
10. What can I say about that? We make mistakes. I'm not defending the govenment, but I do follow my orders to the letter. We have made a few mistakes, as I'm sure Britain has.
11. I seem to remember in my research into the Vietnam war that the figure was closer to 1 million. But lets ask ourselves if they wanted to actually be there. There was more than a few instances of people being forced to live in areas populated by the NVA and Vietcong. As far as the carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia goes, if you look at records (which I have) that were declassified, you'll find that the area bombed was either the ho chi minh trail or was within 3 kilometers of it. I also seem to remember that alot of Special forces accounts or cross border operations said that the NVA impressed loads and loads of people into slave labor. They also had MASSIVE supply depots to equip and arm their army going into south vietnam. So to them they were slaves. When they died, they were civilians. But lets look at one last detail we seemed to have overlooked. The Vietnam war is over and so is the 60's. Besides we import alot of stuff from them now adays.
12. Why did I take the time and effort to type this? I wanted to make a counter-point to you. How long was Britain an empire. I seem to remember a saying I learned in school. Something about the sun never setting on the british empire. You want to talk about attrocities? Lets talk about how the British tried to wipe out the Zulu nation. Lets talk about the murder of protesting irish. All the wanted was to be free of British rule. Lets talk about the iron fist wth which you people ruled Austraila. Lets also remember how you almost joined the civil war on the side of our confederacy. Yeah, great choice there fritz. YOu were going to side with a bunch of slave owners. So, I guess next time before you start to throw mud and dirt, I think you should take a long look at your own history and remember that you were around LONG before we were and also remember that a bunch of rednecks with guns beat your pretty little soldier boys. No one likes a whiner...
1. Even if Germany had the resources to invade the US, they wouldnt have lasted very long. The second most important thing in a war is a good Logistical system. And by that I mean a way to bring supplies to the troops fighting and a way to repair damaged equipment. The Germans didnt have anything like that. When a tank was killed, it sat where it was. The Americans salvaged all they could and used it to fix other tanks and vehicles. And as for Russia, they outfought, outgunned, and out manuvered the Germans when they got back on the offensive. There was no way for the Germans to beat the russian winter or the resources the Russians had at their disposal. The germans might have had bigger tanks, but the Russian tanks were cheaper to make. Thus allowing more tanks to be built (I'm majoring in world history)
2. You got me on the foreign aide and policy thing. They do tend to be a bit unfair.
3. As for our military budget, being the best army in the world takes money to keep it the best. Being in the US army, I can say that I know where the money goes and how it's spent. No one, can keep pace with us technologically, logistaclly or tactically. It takes money to research new things and to train the soldiers to be razor sharp.
4. I think your just pissed off that we have more nukes than you do. But the SALT 2 treaty says that the US will only use nukes in a defensive nature. To use them offensivly would risk having the rest of the world gang up on us. Yes, we have more nukes than anyone, but when you start to add up the rest of the world, it tends to outweigh us by more than a bit.
5. Chemical weapons? I dont know why we have them, but I wish we'd get rid of them. I've seen the results of their use, and it aint nice.
6. As far as militarizing space goes, if we can develop lasers and put them in space, then nukes would be useless. Reagan saw that, so did Marge Thatcher.
7. If we find a landmine, we call the bombsquad and blow it up. As far as the defensive use, I'm all for it. We use them as a last ditch measure to keep us safe. Thats why we have bullets. Mines are a secondary thing to use. Besides, if you have to use mines to inflict damage, you're kind of an amatuer.
8. Witholding food? If they're trying to kill me, then damn right I'll refuse them food. We use that to weaken the "subject" so that he'll talk. Might not like it, but guess what? It works.
9. The human rights thing with the children, I wish we had one. I have 2 girls, and I hate it that they dont have one.
10. What can I say about that? We make mistakes. I'm not defending the govenment, but I do follow my orders to the letter. We have made a few mistakes, as I'm sure Britain has.
11. I seem to remember in my research into the Vietnam war that the figure was closer to 1 million. But lets ask ourselves if they wanted to actually be there. There was more than a few instances of people being forced to live in areas populated by the NVA and Vietcong. As far as the carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia goes, if you look at records (which I have) that were declassified, you'll find that the area bombed was either the ho chi minh trail or was within 3 kilometers of it. I also seem to remember that alot of Special forces accounts or cross border operations said that the NVA impressed loads and loads of people into slave labor. They also had MASSIVE supply depots to equip and arm their army going into south vietnam. So to them they were slaves. When they died, they were civilians. But lets look at one last detail we seemed to have overlooked. The Vietnam war is over and so is the 60's. Besides we import alot of stuff from them now adays.
12. Why did I take the time and effort to type this? I wanted to make a counter-point to you. How long was Britain an empire. I seem to remember a saying I learned in school. Something about the sun never setting on the british empire. You want to talk about attrocities? Lets talk about how the British tried to wipe out the Zulu nation. Lets talk about the murder of protesting irish. All the wanted was to be free of British rule. Lets talk about the iron fist wth which you people ruled Austraila. Lets also remember how you almost joined the civil war on the side of our confederacy. Yeah, great choice there fritz. YOu were going to side with a bunch of slave owners. So, I guess next time before you start to throw mud and dirt, I think you should take a long look at your own history and remember that you were around LONG before we were and also remember that a bunch of rednecks with guns beat your pretty little soldier boys. No one likes a whiner...