U.s.a

[Lazy]

I have to raise my voice about subject called usa-United states of america... i have nothing against the people of usa, but the leaders, yes....

I can't keep wondering why usa want's to be the "police" of the world. Why must it be everywhere and bully out. Why can't it let own nations fight them own fights and solve own wars... why usa?? why?

it has been said that the power is not good for everyone. you must know what to do with the power. Like strong guy shouldn't fight with weak, shouldn't powerful country raise hand against weak. But for only one reason it is acceptable to use power. For JUSTICE!

afganistan, iraq.... vietnam.. what the hell!!! just take a little look closer and you will notice there's much more than justice.

well... do you have anything to say about this...?

and remember this is not against american people. i just hope this gives you something to think.... maybe........ well any kind of comments are welcome....

thanks...

 

[DGB454]

We were getting bored.

Seriously...Afganistan, Iraq...do I even need to explain why we went there? I can't answer the Vietnam one though.

 

[Gil]

If you go back and look in history, The Viet Nam and Korean "police actions" had American involvement for two reasons. One, if South Korea o9r South Viet Nam fell to the communinsts the "Gateway to the West" would be unguarded and they could assist Russia with a "way-station" on their way this way.
Secondly, it is because of our strength that we were asked to intervene. We did because it was to our benefit to do so.

 

[Der Alta]

Lazy, (and the name fits) tkae a history book out. Look up our involvement in WW2. The US tried to stay an impartial party, and keep it's distance. The Japanese attached Pearl Harbor, and that brought us in. When German tanks started towards Paris, we intervened. The US has sacraficed more than it's share of men and women to give peace at times when other countries couldn't.

If we were to lock down our borders and remove our "police" presence from the world, what would have happened in the first gulf war?

The 10,000s of people that Saddam has killed would be continuall ypiled upon that number. Kuwait would be under his control, and if he had done that unopposed, what would have stopped him from adding a few other countries to his list?

I served in the US military. I'ec seen the good side that it has. Building hospitals in the imddle of south america, Building Airports in Africa, to name a few.

We are the police force, because we need to be.

You can say it's because "We are protecting our own interests". I beg to differ. I think we are prtoecting eveyones interests. If we've got our borders locked downa dn have a stranglehold in people who enter the US, where would Saddam have struck if he had developed a nuclear weapon? Where can he stricke now?

Lazy, and the next person who questions our policies, take a few moments and read a history book.

And one more thing. Our ability to protect our freedom allows you to have the opportunity to post this on a website, provided by an American and hosted on an American server. Granted I don't know where the server was built, but I'll bet it's got a bit of American design and ingenuity in it.

After re-reading your post, I wnat to add an additional note. When you state "the leaders, not the people" your adding a caveat you don't have. Our leaders are elected by the people, for the people. So when you have a greivance with "the leaders", you don't realize that you are saying "the people"

AO

 

[Duke]

Not much to add to that. Well put, both of you veterans. Speaking of which, as we approach Memorial Day weekend:

Thank you.

 

[Gil]

Hey man, I just thought I'd make some money for college!
Actually, I'm am a bit nauseous with peeps assuming that the U.S. just "bully boys" its way into situations that it should leave alone.
To add to what AO said, The United States is not in the habit of jumping into other folks' business. We will stand up for a our friends if they ask. Just like you wouldn't (I hope) leave *edit* your best buddy alone in a bar fight,*edit* we don't leave our allies to deal with bullies alone.
Also, if you come and try to "kick our teeth in" to keep us out of the fray...
Let's just say you should, at that point, give your heart to your God. Because we will retaliate. And, when we finish kicking your ass, you be able to wear it as a collar!
The Japanese learned a Serious lesson from attacking us to "keep us out of the war." They assumed that we would sit back and do nothing. When you assume....
Don't ever confuse not wanting to initiate hostilities, with an inability to handle hostile parties.
We won't hit first, but we will hit back, Hard! And in such a fashion, that smart people, won't be wanting another such reprisal.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Gil
Just like you wouldn't (I hope) leave a woman alone stranded with a flat tire, we don't leave our allies to deal with bullies alone.

This is what I think pisses a lot of countries off. Just an observation.

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by milefile
This is what I think pisses a lot of countries off. Just an observation.

I see your point. I edited it in the first post too.
So, change that, to "just like you wouldn't leave your best buddy alone in a bar fight".

 

[Attila_Da_Hun]

Lazy, we fought afganistan becuase we wanted to elliminated the terrorist organzation that was responcible for the attacks in africa and 9-11. 9-11 proved what we already knew about them, that they were a threat not only to the US, but the world. just recently one of Bin Ladens main peeps, says that they plan to attack Britian, Australia, and the US for whatever reasons.

 

[milefile]

I hear they're after Norway now, too.

 

[Attila_Da_Hun]

Originally posted by milefile
I hear they're after Norway now, too.

man they get more idiotic by the day. i predict by the year 2030 there will be now more arabs left on the planet, they will have either killed themselves killing eachother, or killed themselves bombing american's, englanders, and whoever else they wanna turn into 500 peices. sure seems likes its going that way huh.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
This is what I think pisses a lot of countries off. Just an observation.

That the US often leaves women alone stranded with a flat tire?

man they get more idiotic by the day. i predict by the year 2030 there will be now more arabs left on the planet,

What does the adverse US attitude toward Norway have to do with Arabs on the planet?

 

[Attila_Da_Hun]

Originally posted by M5Power
That the US often leaves women alone stranded with a flat tire?



What does the adverse US attitude toward Norway have to do with Arabs on the planet?

nothing, i was just making a point about how the arabs love to eachother and other people. well not all of them, and im not trying to be sterio typer....

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Attila_Da_Hun
the arabs love to eachother

You're missing a verb.

Are you Canadian?

 

[Attila_Da_Hun]

Originally posted by M5Power
You're missing a verb.

Are you Canadian?

fast typing


the arabs love to kill eachother

 

[qjasonp]

Great debate everyone. I just have one thing to had. I to am disapointed in the U.S.A. not because we went to war with Iraq and Afganistan, but I sseriously belive that we could of avoided 9-11, and we just got this ego and didn't think anyone could hurt us that bad,and also the fact that it took us 12 years to finsh the dam job in Iraq.We lost even more men and wemen this time around,when as for as I'm concerned we shouldn't have.I'm just so sick and tired of us being so freaking nice,I meen if we did have the thing these other countries do there would be no more Mid east.I'm not saying thats what I want,I'm just sick of all the unnecessary soldiers dieing when they shouldn't.................



Ok sorry I guess that was more then just one thing

 

[Giancarlo]

Lazy
I can't keep wondering why usa want's to be the "police" of the world. Why must it be everywhere and bully out. Why can't it let own nations fight them own fights and solve own wars... why usa?? why?

it has been said that the power is not good for everyone. you must know what to do with the power. Like strong guy shouldn't fight with weak, shouldn't powerful country raise hand against weak. But for only one reason it is acceptable to use power. For JUSTICE!

Uh... Did you notice you basically answered your own question?

 

[qjasonp]

Good eyes Giancarlo,I didn't even catch that

 

[Attila_Da_Hun]

Originally posted by qjasonp
Good eyes Giancarlo,I didn't even catch that

same here

 

[rjensen11]

I think we should re-write our Constitution and elect Blaire as our president. If the Brits don't want him during the next round of elections, I'd be happy to have him as our politian. HE ACTUALLY KNOWS STUFF CAN CAN SPEAK MORE THAN 5 WORDS PER MINUTE!!! AND HE CAN PRONOUNCE WORDS CORRECTLY! Seeing him on CSpan when the people from the House of Commons and the House of Lords bombarded him with questions changed my view of him for the better!

 

[Talentless]

Blair can legally become our president. You should know that Blair is member of the Labour party, which has roots in socialism. His domestic policies may not be as much to your liking as his speeches about fighting tyrants are.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by Talentless
Blair can legally become our president. You should know that Blair is member of the Labour party, which has roots in socialism. His domestic policies may not be as much to your liking as his speeches about fighting tyrants are.

Sorry, but you're wrong on both parts:

A) Blair cannot become a US president because he is not a native-born American or an American by the signing of the US Constitution(does that seem racist at all?)

B) From what I've heard him talk about his domestic policies I am in favour of his leadership. I especially like his beliefs of not removing public funding from universities, because that's what is happening all across the US(But that might be more of individual state issues, but especially in Minnesota, the Universities are getting jack **** just about, and tuition is increasing at dramatic rates)

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Sorry, but you're wrong on both parts:

A) Blair cannot become a US president because he is not a native-born American or an American by the signing of the US Constitution(does that seem racist at all?)

Ironically, Talentless and I have debated this before and found that you don't actually have to be native-born, just a naturalised US citizen for some extended period of time (five years?).

B) From what I've heard him talk about his domestic policies I am in favour of his leadership. I especially like his beliefs of not removing public funding from universities, because that's what is happening all across the US(But that might be more of individual state issues, but especially in Minnesota, the Universities are getting jack **** just about, and tuition is increasing at dramatic rates)

Talentless is conservative, and people with a political leaning tend to underestimate their own leaning and overestimate opponents'. Blair's no socialist - his views are extremely similar to the United States' Democratic party's general views.

 

[Talentless]

Actually, I said it (the labour party) has ties to socialism. I am aware not of his specific policies but that he is said to have moved away from the some of the more "social" policies, or whatever you want to call it. I saw the People in the News on him. Anyway, the point is that Blair's election may mean higher spending on social programs. That may or may not be good. Depends on several factor.

I do lean conservative, but not to any extreme, save for guns. I agree with some regulation and social spending, but I sure as hell do not want to emulate parts of California.

I think most people would prefer to not increase funding for any institution year after year with no results worth noting. But there is probably going to be some funding increases that are necessary in order to keep a program running.

 

[Kelly]

I think Blair has had a rough deal lately and he's doing a fine job leading our country, he will get my vote at the next election ( if he stays) 👍

I don't know about all Bush's policies but he seems to be doing a good job too, I have no probs with him









note: I'm not a political person like T, but just thought I'd give both leaders the 👍 for taking on the world and sticking by their principles regardless of all the crictics and sceptics.

 

[rjensen11]

http://library.thinkquest.org/11492/convention/requirements.html

The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
...
What exactly does "natural-born" mean?
Persons born citizens of the United States are considered natural-born. Therefore, a child born of illegal immigrants or born on U.S. soil yet lived his or her life out of the nation could still be President. A naturalized citizen could not.

 

[Talentless]

Ok. I think I got the pres confused with another office.

error admitted.

 

[Talentless]

I'm not as interested in domestic issues as in geo politics. Something Bush has going against him is his commitment to things. Even ppl on the right aren't over joyed at the progress in rebuilding afghanistan and iraq. and given the dubious nature of the war, high expectations of a quick rebuild, quicker than japan and germany, are reasonable.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Talentless


I do lean conservative, but not to any extreme, save for guns. I agree with some regulation and social spending, but I sure as hell do not want to emulate parts of California.

I think most people would prefer to not increase funding for any institution year after year with no results worth noting. But there is probably going to be some funding increases that are necessary in order to keep a program running.

The way you describe it, it sounds like I'm more conservative on many issues than you are, though I believe you and I would agree on many government spending issues as well.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

It seems that everytime we (the U.S) get involved in anything some part of the world gets pissed off...personally I think that they can go #uck themselves because I dont give a damn what the hell they think abut us were just trying to help...whats so wrong about helping people.. I mean sure some innocent people die but its not like we kill em on purpose...and afterwards we feed them and help them rebuild..WTF is wrong with that? It seems that evey time we do something some country gets all pissed about it. There are a few countries that are pretty cool like Canada, Germany, the U.K...most european countries..some asian ones...etc. But then there are the ones that are so utterly stupid and corrupt that we have no coice but to step in. I mean we could just mind our own business and let the rest of the world kill each other or watch them beat women and blow themselves up. :sarcasm: Hey guys! I'm bored lets go strap bombs to oursleves and kill tons of innocent people! YAY!...UM NO.... that kind of $hit pisses me off....I dont get why we will bomb a $hit hole like Iraq but not go take out those suicide bombing peice of crap palestinians....don't get me wrong I'm not saying all palestinians are bad....it's just that alot of em are pretty #ucked up.....I'm not trying to say that americans are perfect...were far from it...but atleast we TRY...I know that sometimes we stick our nose where it dosn't belong but overall we mean well...I mean how many other countrys bomb the hell out of a country...then use more of their own money to help feed and buy clothes for people?....yet somehow we are still viewed as bad guys by many countries..ARGH....It makes me angry...

as for tony blair....he kicks ass...hes one of the few people who has the balls to stand up for what is right....unlike those stupid french...bunch a bastards....no offense to the french people...its your government that I dont like...not you