[QUOTE=Zarjazz]And you know that how?
Name them? I can't name 130 countries.
Yeah, that is BS. That is totally false.
Turn on thread page Beta
A year on, but it was still wrong watch
- 14-04-2004 22:48
- Thread Starter
- 15-04-2004 10:42
yeah i probably should have specified there, but of a misleading statement, which some of you have rightly picked up on.. 130 countries have been occupied by the US, or had the US lauch military campaigns/operations against, and that includes WWI and WWII, and a couple of other campaings that may be called morally legitimate, ie somalia. nut you only need to look at vietnam and mccarthyism, and the fact that only multimillionaires every get elected president, and that their interests are controlled by those who fund them, to see the words democracy ebb away. america is a land of pretensions...oh and i accept my previous statement was misleading but please try and see the message im tryin to convey rather than aggressively attacking a misleading comment on the periphery of the argument.
(Original post by Howard)
- 15-04-2004 10:58
<Howard bends over, parts cheeks, and emits a fart>
- 15-04-2004 11:12
the iraq "mess" is a good example of the US getting itself involved and mired in. if they had any sense they would understand that a large section of troops will be needed in iraq for some years. the feeling that i get is that a large proportion of the american public do not understand/accept this....
the removal of a dictator is a good thing in my eyes. but the way the americans intend to restructure iraq is what i do not agree with. democracy in american eyes is democracy on their terms, not iraqi terms. one reporter apparantly questioned donald rumsfield that what if the iraqis wished for a state like irans. its out of the question.
what the US want is a stable miltary presence and influence in the middle east. terrorism has been successful in weakening american trust in saudi arabia so it needs a powerful position in iraq. also it is utter stupidity to assume that americans didnt go in with oil being a factor. iraq has the largest supply after saudi arabia and the speed in which the oil fields were captured.
the US get a hard deal sometimes, not to get involved it gets a grilling, same when it actually does. the thing is any country will only act in its interests. something on the scale of iraq would not be considered without any benefit to the US.
(Original post by Karim)
- 15-04-2004 12:42
not quite true i'm afriad, did my history coursework on this topic so i've read lots of fat books on it, and the upshot its that the 'saving lives' reason was the propaganda fed to the American public. The fact is if they had told the Japanese earlier that they could keep their Emperor (which they did in the end) the war could have ended without any atomic bombs. They discused making the surrender terms clearer after Postam but explicitly decided against it. The only viable reason is that they wanted to drop the bomb. They did, to intimerdate Stalin and make sure Russia had no part in the peace settlement. Russia was bigger worry than Japan and Soviet Diplomacy governed the decision to drop the bomb, not saving lives.
This is besides the point since the fire bombing of the major German towns was as bad as the atomic bomb. Around 2 million people died on the Western Front, sorry that should read 2 million civillans. So the Atomic bomb really isnt a big deal.
- 15-04-2004 12:46
Che i dont think you can justify the position you have taken up totally. I agree that the vietnam war was an awful event and the killing of large numbers of civillans by the US in an undiscriminate way is awful as was the destruction of the countryside. However the US is the major economic power in the world and to give as much proserpity as possible to its civillans it has to trade. Certain countries are going to resist trade. This is why the US were so against communisim since it would of reduced their trading opinions essentailly along with all the ideological stuff about free will be taken away. Thus to ensure that the civillans are as proserprous as possible the US does need to use military force to force trade. this is bad however its the way it works one only has to look at the actions of the British empire to see that we did exactly the same.
- 16-04-2004 15:34
Here is the first nationwide poll in Iraq since the end of the war:
"57 percent of respondents said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same."
"Almost half -- 49 percent -- of those questioned believe the invasion of their country by U.S. and British troops was right, compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong."
"Iraqi people appeared optimistic about the future, with 71 percent saying they expected things to be better in a years time, six percent predicting it will be worse and nine percent the same."