The US,as we all know,is a country on the western hemisphere,(or eastern,depending on your point of view and symmetry),however,it has troops occupying various countries,and tells many countries(countries that have very rough relations with the US)what to do,and not to do.In the case of Nuclear Weapons,the US was searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.One may not know,however,is that,in the 80s,the US gave Saddam Hussein weapons of destruction to bomb Iran,and northern Iraq,populated by Kurds and such.The US has NO RIGHT to violate other country's affairs.That is why,I call America,The International Dictatorship.I know they think it is for the safety and security of others,but has anyone ever had the idea,that the US might turn corrupt one day,(or maybe it is)and turn its back on those countries.

US foreign policies intergrate with these.Many US policies include the handling of nuclear weapons(particularly for Middle East and Asia,and yet,barely Europe),weapons in general as well.And the US tries to rebuild the countries it bombed and such,and turn them into democratic(or seemingly)nations.Does anyone here think,that the US has the right to do this,or not?Give your own opinions.

the right? yes, do I agree with it? sually not, depends....

To remake the world into an idealized image of yourself is something all powerhouses do, and hypocrisy is the part of any foreign policy.  However since the collpase of the Soviet Union I dont see the point in doing it anymore, especially being expensive and divisive and gaining little return for the effort.

Throughout history I am always fascinated with the superpowers of any given time and I can see how the US really isnt different from any of those, but also being here now shows me its downside as well.

In the case of Nuclear Weapons,the US was searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.One may not know,however,is that,in the 80s,the US gave Saddam Hussein weapons of destruction to bomb Iran

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Iran was by far the bigger threat at that time and it was very smart to give Saddam weapons to hold them off.

What should America do?  Isolate ourselves and let our enemies become powerful and overrun our interests all over the world.  If violating some country's internal affairs is needed to keep us safe, then so be it.  Any other country would do the exact same thing in our position, and a lot more ruthlessly.  No other country became a great state otherwise.

The goal of any state is survival because in this world there is only a finite amount of power and to be safe you have to grab as much of it as you can. 

I feel no guilt that America uses whatever means necessary to defend itself and its interests.

edit: double post

### I feel no guilt that America uses whatever means necessary to defend itself and its interests.I feel no guilt that America uses whatever means necessary to defend itself and its interests.###

This is how racism and Hitler started...He used exactly the same meaning of words..

In our ages no empire is suitable to last long. A CIA paper , already forsees that America's supremacy will last , mostly , another 20 years...Afterwards , is the turn of China , India and Indonesia...

As for USA , the greater they r , the greater is the noise they make when they fell. And USA , will have an ugly fall...

Isk.

I would agree with you on how the US will not be as much of a super power in 20yrs as it is or was.  China I believe will become the next superpower.   America will be brought down not to far maybe to #5 or so on the list, but other countries will step up and take the US place

Americas downfall will come from within, not from without

I am by no means nationalistic or even patriotic but I hope American power does not crash down too fast, power vacuums can be dangerous things, for all countries, best to have more of an ottoman style gradual decay if possible.

I'd like to see this paper, and I highly doubt Indonesia is included in that as in 20 years it might not even exist.  I believe it's probably an urban legend.

As an American I believe I have the moral duty to defend my country from our numerous enemies and secure our position as the world's preeminent power fpr the good of the American populace.  I would be violating my duty to the United States if I did not try to make her strong at every opportunity.  As Machiavelli said, "the greatest good one can ever do is to do good for their country".  Those who have tried to make any international system of peace and brotherhood have failed and I will work hard to keep America from repeating their folly.

It is with this in mind I plan to enter a career that will further the power of my country.  I have the choices as Engineer for a defence aerospace firm, or professional officer in the US Army, and hopefully later as a politician as well.

Exactly, I'd love to see former Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and many other countries with the power and influence that the US has..

Not only Fanatial Muslim Countries can do damage if they had the power of the US.You are forgetting,all countries can become corrupt with power.Ask Spain in the 16-18 centuries,and Germany in the early 20th Century.Not only Muslim States have become corrupt,but radicalistic Chrisitians and Catholic States have become corrupt with power,including the Papacy.You can not forget that the papacy has helped catholic dictators.

The US is also decreasing other countries security,like India.India and Pakistan are enemies,are they not?The US,for the help they gave during the war on terrorism in Afghanistan,gave permission for Pakistan to purchase weapons from US.This could hurt India's security badly.Lets not forget,the US did remove Saddam(for good purposes)from power,and even though there is president,at Iraq's current state,a power-vacuum can occur,and other countries near Iraq can take advantage of the situation.

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 someone asked me to describe myself would "well I'm a human being" mean anything?  If I said, well I'm American, Dutch, Malagasy or anything like that it would tell you about my ethnicity (usually), culture, and a lot about the way I live.  Nation-states are the highest order of allegiance that carry any real meaning.

Talking about public perspective, the victors write the history books.  The reason we love Alexander the Great, Rome, and others like them are because they were successful and powerful. 

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.

I do feel pity for victims of tragedy, I gave $50 to the Tsunami victims.  The reason I feel bound to America is because America is my homeland and Americans are (or should be) all in this together because we have the same culture and much the same goals.  They are the community with which I identify.  The world community is so diverse and heterogenous it would be impossible to identify with it.  To think that a tribal chief from Bougainville and I could live without discord as equals in the same state is not realistic.  What I want and what they would want and believe are too divergent.  In such instances it is better if each group lives autonomously and relates to each other as independent states instead of heaping them together in a polyglot fashion.

To give a figurative example, it's better if he and I get our own apartments and not try to interfere with eachother's daily affairs, instead of trying to be roommates.

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.

I would rather have the U.S. be the superpower rather than any other country. Not because i live here, but because the U.S. has no set ethnicity. That goes a long way when you look at all the ethnic wars fought throughout history.

This however, does not alleviate the U.S. of what its done wrong. As an American-born citizen, its my duty to voice my opinion and/or protest when i feel my government is doing an act considered wrong. This is not done to look cool, but because i want to improve my country as a whole. That means improving the government by making issues aware to the public so that they can actively participate in changing a policy and whatnot. 

The U.S. had no right to go into Iraq based on the information that it had. First they claim Saddam and Osama were working together, then they said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. When they couldnt find those weapons, which is the reason that we went to war, no one was held accountable. They failed on a massive level and no one even says anything. Then there are those idiots who say that Saddam moved his weapons to Syria before the U.S. attack. Ya, you know where the weapons are but the U.S. intelligence hasnt found it in over 2 years. Great theory. Now we are simply there to rebuild. No agenda, just to rebuild our mistake and "bring freedom and democracy to Iraq". Let me tell you something. Al-Jazeera shows uncensored news, which is how news should be, and the U.S. didnt like the fact that Al-Jazeera actually reports real stories to the public. So what did the U.S. do during the rebuilding process in Iraq? They banned the English language branch of Al-Jazeera news channel on all U.S. satellites. We are condemning Al-Jazeera's honest work and we expect to teach Iraq about freedom? Give me a break.

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!

Incase you havent watched the news for the past 3 years, Al-Jazeera is an Arabic news channel. Where do you get off calling them terrorists? We have a liiiiittle thing in this country called freedom of press. We claim to be the children of freedom yet we do not apply our amendments to everyone. That was my point.

And why shouldnt they be able to air uncensored news? Everything in this country is filtered through some kind of organization with an agenda, we need something like Al-Jazeera here. Its on the satellite channels anyway, so you have to pay to see it. But they removed it. Some freedom of speech, eh?

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.

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!

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!"

____________________________________________________________ _____

Where do you get your info? From "Curveball"?

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.

America itself is also not invulnerable, but that's not the point, our interests are far flung and they are threatened to a great extent.

Your last statement is silly, should we tolerate because it's normal?  Would you tell a cop trying to catch a murderer to drop it because murders occur all the time.

Regardless of that, there's the principle, terrorists attacked my country and now they must die for their mistake, I'm not going to excuse them because other people get abused more often.

actually, they states have used them more than once. the uranium depleted bombs that were used in the kosovo war, have beem classified as wepons of mass destruction by the UN.  and i'm sure all the civillians were the ones that sent the terrorists to your country, because thats who gets killed and suffer the most during those wars. you sure are getting those terrorists!

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.

Oh really? The same UN that is supposedly an American puppet declares our "silver bullets" as our tank crews call them weapons of mass destruction?

That ruling is also absurd, one depleted uranium shell can only destroy one tank, hardly a weapon of mass destruction.  And any the depleted uranium in those shells doesn't under go fission on impact and have a half-life of about 6 billion years which makes them extremely radiologically inactive (in fact, inside an Abrams tank filled with DU shells, the radiation is less than outside because the armor stops cosmic background radiation thus the radiation caused by a full load of DU shells is less than normal background radiation).  The only reason depleted uranium is used and not other substances is because its so dense and fairly plentiful from American nuclear power plants.  The Uranium in them is also about as toxic as certain propellants and explosives in other weapons of war.

Civilians die in war, deal with it.

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.

Very good Genghis....and from my part congratulations...

Besides Machiavelli , i sugest u read Aristoteles too.... U see , power without moral , even if it is used for the best of one's country , i can also , at the same moment , be used for the worst , for another persons country...

What , is important , it is not to have the power , but to know HOW to use it.

Isk. 

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.

Depleted uranium of any quantity is a health hazzard.

There is lots to like about American ways of life. (Love the classic cars I own.) Legal and social rights are good here too. However, we have a responsibility to use our might in a respectable and restraining fashion. When America sneezes, the world catches a cold. We have been irresponsible on the world stage for the past many years. We also have been duped. WMD-Weapons of Mass Deception. In the mean time our economy has been shipped to the lowest bidder.

well said.  (love the classic cars too!!!). 

The Radiation is incredibly low, the health problems I believe come from the fact that Uranium is a heavy metal and some of it vaporizes on impact, creating a fine dust of dense particles.  The same thing happens with gold or silver dust, but because we hardly ever come into contact with them in dust form we don't realize the hazards. 

Depleted Uranium is also used by many boat manufacturers as counterweights to improve commercial boat stability.  Obviously they know it poses no radiation hazard.

I did read a report by the WHO about DU shells used in Kosovo found that ground contamination by DU shells was localized to within a few meters of from the impact site. 

I would venture that the problems the Italians encountered were due to establishing their site at a place that was saturated with these shells, and not a more healthy site.  The leukemia I would also be sure are the result of the toxic and not radiological properties of depleted uranium.

Here's the report

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

You can't be serious as to think we should get rid of WMD.  No country is going to put this genie back into its bottle.  If there is such an agreement, the benefits of cheating are endless.

And according to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty articles I, II, and III, the Iranians have to justify to us that they are not going to use their nuclear technology for purposes that would undermine the nonproliferation effort, as stated below:

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

America overthrew my father's homeland government,which was a democracy,didn't you know?The Dominican Republic was a democratic government by president Juan Bosch,and then,Americans interfered and Juan was exiled,and then the Dominican Civil War started in 1965.The Americans supported the pro-dictatorial leader.

In the mid 20th Century,the Dominican Republic went to Civil War.After the rule of military leader Rafael Leonidas Trujillo,Juan Bosch was overthrown by a US coup in 1963.This sparked the Dominican Civil War.Again,the US intervenes,and Joaquin Balaguer establishes rule.Bosch was actually a democratically elected President,and the US ruined it for DR.He was opposed to Rafael's tyrannical,dictatoral ways,and was therefore exiled in 1937.After Rafael was assasinated,Bosch returned and was elected president.However,US coup desposed of his position.The military then revolted in this outrage,and went to war with the Junta.The US then intervened,and went against the Military.They helped the Junta,and established Joaquin's ruling.The weird thing is,the US put Joaquin in ruling,and he was a protege of Dictator Rafael.

I'm well aware, I've seen that on the History Channel a bunch of times and read about it for class.

yi yi zhi yi - use a barbarian to control another barbarian

tu si gou peng - when the rabbit hunting is over, cook the hunting dog

so they raised Saddam then attacked him later.. they're just good students of Chinese wisdom..

Actually, DU is extremely hazardous. On impact it vaporizes to some degree, releasing toxic particles in the same way as a small dirty bomb. What is known as Gulf War Syndrome is caused by this material in the air, and has effected hundreds of thousands of American veterans, rendering many of them handicapped and putting them on disability. It is estimated that over 500k Iraqi deaths will result from DU exposure during the Gulf War. The toxins are also responsible for thousands of birth defects in both Iraqis and Americans: in this condition children are often born without eyes.

Would I consider it a WMD, probably. Should the U.S be barred from using it, absolutely not. It would likely be a good policy to phase out its use, considering the toll on American servicemen, but might is right, and if the nation wishes to continue using it, so be it.