America’s what one country can do and not do policy

"If someone asked me to describe myself would "well I'm a human being" mean anything? "

Of course that means something Humans are cool, most of the time.

"I owe no allegiance to the idea of a world citizen, it is laughable to think that a Lapp from Finland, a Pygmy from the Congo, a Fulani from the Sahara, and myself should be bound together because we are human."

If you feel pity if one of them has his home washed away in a flood, then that's enough.
I don't get it, why should Americans, or people of other countries, feel more bound together than bound with others as well? Why is it so great to share a certain culture? Why is it so great if everyone lives the same? Actually, I think it's kind of boring.

"I also do not think that popularity should ever be the goal of a state, it's goal is to ensure the betterment of its own citizens who created said state to defend them."

Not the state, but the people.

its a simple matter of truth that the closer things are to you the more kinship you feel, but it is not always an argument that works in defense of nationalism.  Take me for instance, I only care about me and my immediates(family, friends others) damn the rest and if I act on their side it is only for my own purposes.  If the governmnet does not reflect what I believe in (as it doesnt) whyt should I have any loyalty to them, if any5thing my own government is more of a threat to me than other governments because it can directly legislate over me even in peacetime.  I feel more loyalty to a good author or my empolyer than to my senators (who also blow)...so why should just being born in a place make it something I should be part of, I could have been norn anywhere.

Less of an argument then a differing opinion by an American, I do think that Americas behavior should not be condemned any more than any other.  Being a nation is tough and being in power means you must hol don to it as longas you can.  Youll have a tough time finding other superpowers that behave differently or threat other people better, most are alot worse, so far at least.

 

Wow, wait, do you believe Al-gazeera should be allowed to air?  Are you mad or just another terrorist?  They incite more terrorism and encouge it!  They are terrorists in case you haven't noticed!

The US went to Iraq for the WMD which were not found, not surprising.  But the intelligence did make a mistake and currently they are being changed.  But how do we know the WMD were not moved?  For all we know they were moved to Syria, which is rather likely.  Then they said they were affiliated with terrorists.  Which is true!  Was Saddam not a terrorist himself?  Of soure he was!

Currently we are there to rebuild a devastated nation.  Is that wrong?  No!  But what is wrong is Al-Gazeera trying to inder that progress and the democracy.

Al-Gazeera is wrond, 100%!  We are in Iraq to help, not hurt!

Any movement of WMD to Syria would have been seen by our satellites, day or night. And we have two satellites that are capable to see things at night.

Now the war on Iraq was not needed at all. For one, the reason Al-Qieda(spelling, I can never remember how to spell this word...) attacked us is because Saudi Arabia insulted them by not letting Osama fight Iraq for attacking Kuwait and said the United States was going to fight the war. So America moved into Saudi Arabia which really pissed off Osama because now Christians were in the holy lands. So its safe to say Saddam and Osama really weren't on good terms with each other. I'll try to find a link on this info.

For the weapons of mass destruction, the CIA said they weren't sure if there were any and could not confirm it. So our President Mr.Bush decided to say that had them, that we should attack immediatly because they are such a huge threat, when I beleave it was said there were somewhere near 25 other countries that posed a even bigger threat then Iraq. After none of the WMD were found Bush blamed the CIA and that why I beleave our previous leader of the CIA resigned because he was basicly insulted. But I don't know if it was the real reason or not for him stepping down, its only a guess on that part.

Now I'll agree with Al-Jazeera, they do and can cause extremist. They just showed to much, while we should have freedom of press, we should also protect our troops. In this time and the state Iraq was in, it def wasn't helping at all. We needed to Unite that country and we needed to stop the insurgents and not allow others to get into it.

While I'll agree Iraq had its pros, it has caused alot of Democracies and more freedom in general in the mid east, it also has a hell of alot of cons.

[QUOTE=Thegeneral]

Wow, wait, do you believe Al-gazeera should be allowed to air?  Are you mad or just another terrorist?  They incite more terrorism and encouge it!  They are terrorists in case you haven't noticed!

/quote

 

Al-Jazeera is no worse thanb American news.  Its common American propoganda in the US news outlast to bash Al-Jazeera but they are all the same thing.  Al-Jazeera is really just the Fox news of the Arabic world, except that they are more liberal.  For example at least Al-Jazeera expressly states in biases, which are of course anti-american but also anti-Gaddaffi, anti-dictator, pro-reform and pro -moderate.  Compared to large amounts of the Arab world its actually pretty modern.  They also conducted a poll showing most Algerians would rather return to French rule than have the curretn dictatorships they have now..no american news channel would ever be so subversive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

why is america allowed to possess wepons of mass destruction, and other countries arn't?  those countries are more likely to get invaded/ or put into a situation where they have to defend themselves.  yet its those countries that have them taken away, or told they arnt allowed.  i can understand a countries desire to defend themselves, but the threat to the US and the rest of north america is small compared to the middle east, and other 'hot spots'.  there is just the threat of terrorism over here, and i dont see how people can justify starting a war over terrorism;  it happens every day in other places all over the world.

America and stable countries should be allowed to possess them just as a sane citizen should be allowed to own a knife but a violent person shouldn't.  America has only used them twice in a world war, and never since.

I don't see why America can be compared to a "sane citizen" and not to a violent one. No other country than the USA has overthrown so many goverments in the 20th centry.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl America and stable countries should be allowed to possess them just as a sane citizen should be allowed to own a knife but a violent person shouldn't.  America has only used them twice in a world war, and never since. I don't see why America can be compared to a "sane citizen" and not to a violent one. No other country than the USA has overthrown so many goverments in the 20th centry.

I'm referring to nukes, America has never used nukes in the past 60 years, countries like Iran probably wouldn't be so restrained.

And if you want me to apologize for my country's overthrow of dangerous communist governments like in Nicaragua, Grenada, and Chile, I'm sorry for you because I won't, and if I were President I would have done the same thing.

about DU missiles, they are used primarily for bunker busting, this is because they can burrow deeper in the fortified bunker due to the heavy nature of the depleted Uranuim.  Now the word depleted should mean that it isn't radioactive any more, however that isn't a proven fact.  For example after the bombing of Kosovo, occupying forces moved in from all over the world.  One branch of these policing forces were Italian, they made their base in an area near enemy bunkers that had been hit by DU bunker buster missiles.  Most of them later came down with leukemia, this was on the news in most europian counties.  Italian scientists found out that some fragments of the DU bombs were in fact radioactive.  This caused a panic in Yugoslavia in general, i saw the new rports for months on Greek Television news as well as German (ihave a satelite dish) many people living near DU fragments came down with leukemia and the radioactive fragments were eventualy cleaned up.  At that time all countries outside the US that had GU bobms pulled them out of play, i know Greece and Turkey did cause i saw it on the news.  An inqury by the American Government was to be established on just how depleted was this Uranium, but it never happened.

Now, for DU used in armor as an aplique kit for an Abrams, it is supposedly of low radiation.  This to me may be true since i have a cousin in the Greek army and he has driven in an Abrams (Greece has purchased a number of them).  But in its bunker busting form it isn't so "clean".  Why i don't know, perhaps if this inquiry was actually done, we would have an answer.

Furthermore Cluster Bombs are also weapons of mass destruction according to the UN and still they are used everywere by America.  These weapons can't be trusted, along with the other weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, biological etc, in the hand of ANYONE!  Be it american or what not.  And last time i checked, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and a number of other countries all have these weapons.  Are they deemed responsible enough?  Who judges these things?  America shouldn't be a hypocrite, tell the truth.  No weapons of mass destruction for anyone. 

Thank you.

Reading the posts above about the famous WMDs, there is a very big contradiction about WMD search. UN weapons inspectors were searching Iraq for these weapons. If they found them, this would be obviously evidence that Iraq had them. But if they didn't find them, as it finally happened, then that is only taken as evidence that Iraq was not "telling them what material he has and allowing them to shut it down OR has moved them to a neighboring country, eg Syria".

In other words, if they found weapons that's proof Iraq had them and if they didn't it's proof Iraq was hiding them. That means nothing the UN inspectors could do could be accepted as evidence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, since only evidence that it did is counted. Heads I win, tails you lose.

It is quite logical that in order to perform a genuine test of a theory you must permit the possibility of evidence that would count against it. If you do not, the test cannot be genuine, because a test that is run with the presumption that nothing could count as a failure of the test is no real test at all, its most likely a joke.