Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The20
Suicidesoldier#1
The20
It's not so much that they have wars, it's more that they started them all, lie to get them started and are in the news because of dead civilians all the time.
That and Guantanamo.


The irony being of course that it was never us that tortured Detainees.

An unfortunate truth perhaps?


Lie to get them started? xp

So Saddam Hussein wasn't evil? xp


Or perhaps Osama Bin Laden?
Desert Storm 2 was started on the grounds that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and that he was supporting al-Qaida. No WMDs were found and afaik no connections between Saddam and al-Qaida could be proven. The entire basis for this war were lies or unfunded accusations.
Oh, and Saddam was evil? Well, maybe the US should have thought of that when they supported him during the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties.

This gem that was part of the campaign to get the rest of the world involved in the first Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

On a side note, who tortures detainees in a detention camp inside an US military base if not the US?


The military builds the bases, but the military does not operate in them. Iraqi forces for instance, were responsible for such things, and

There were many justifications for the war, such as previous human rights abuses, including the Halajba poison gas attacks, the An-Anfal Genocide,, his sub-sequent violation of his treaty and attempted *second* invasion into Kuwait, and he did in fact have weapons of mass destruction in 1991; there was no reason to believe he wouldn't, now. He did in fact have what would classify as WMD's, but more importantly he had what was mostly botched materials. Since his poison gas and nerve gas degraded over time it likely would have been unable to kill as many people, but since he had tried before and was willing to use it, and obviously thought it would work, it does not in any way spare him from guilt or violation of his treaty for trying to develop working weapons. Some informants in Iraq did lie about the volume of potential materials present, but he still had at least 1000 tons of VX gas and 8500 liters of Anthrax still unaccounted for in the U.N.'s resolution. Again, while a lot of it degraded, it doesn't mean he didn't have it, keep it, or try to use it etc. But no, it's not the only reason for the invasion, nor was it the only proposed.

As far as your first idea that the Persian gulf war was only around the Nayirah testimony?

The criticism, has mostly been, that the Iraqi's returned the incubators and only killed 100 babies, instead of several hundred. But the fact still remains he killed at least 10,000 people with poison gas and nerve gas, literally the single most painful way to die, and countless more people who died from side effects years later. He was waging a campaign of genocide and tried to wipe out the kurds, whom he killed hundreds of thousands of, and presumably into the millions since so many people can't be accounted for. If that's not a call for war, I don't know what is. What, so I mean, let's pretend the testimony was a farce and Iraq had only killed 2 babies. In what way does this invalidate the rest of what Saddam did?


Also Iran attacked first and we were reluctant to help out either side until the U.N. called for an intervention. Since we neither destroyed Iran or Iraq our goal was mostly to end the fighting.

As well, we've supported lots of people with a history of problems. Cuba, for instance, we initially supported the overthrow of the previous government, until a worse man came to power. Britain had anti-Semitic views and refused to defend Israel when they literally left them to die in in the 6 day war. So, yes, we've supported a lot of organizations who weren't necessarily right in order to quell violence and put an end to fighting. This was WWI, and WWII, where we put an end to the bloodshed, which both of which were presumably "just another European war". France, Britain, Spain, Germany, had all been allies and enemies at one point before.


We've always been reluctant to intervene. Perhaps too much so. It's not until American soil is attacked or we're faced with massive bloodshed that we suddenly intervene when we could have prevented it, earlier.

I'll agree that had we just stepped in sooner, we could have solved the issues. But the idea that now that we're invading we're evil? Kind of silly.
Suicidesoldier#1
The20
Desert Storm 2 was started on the grounds that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and that he was supporting al-Qaida. No WMDs were found and afaik no connections between Saddam and al-Qaida could be proven. The entire basis for this war were lies or unfunded accusations.
Oh, and Saddam was evil? Well, maybe the US should have thought of that when they supported him during the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties.

This gem that was part of the campaign to get the rest of the world involved in the first Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

On a side note, who tortures detainees in a detention camp inside an US military base if not the US?


The military builds the bases, but the military does not operate in them. Iraqi forces for instance, were responsible for such things, and
Iraqi forces are in Guantanamo Bay?

Suicidesoldier#1
There were many justifications for the war, such as previous human rights abuses, including the Halajba poison gas attacks, the An-Anfal Genocide,, his sub-sequent violation of his treaty and attempted *second* invasion into Kuwait, and he did in fact have weapons of mass destruction in 1991; there was no reason to believe he wouldn't, now.
Of course, since they were sold to him by the west. However, i was talking about the second Gulf War, with GWB Junior, no the first with GWB Senior.

Suicidesoldier#1
He did in fact have what would classify as WMD's, but more importantly he had what was mostly botched materials. Since his poison gas and nerve gas degraded over time it likely would have been unable to kill as many people, but since he had tried before and was willing to use it, and obviously thought it would work, it does not in any way spare him from guilt or violation of his treaty for trying to develop working weapons. Some informants in Iraq did lie about the volume of potential materials present, but he still had at least 1000 tons of VX gas and 8500 liters of Anthrax still unaccounted for in the U.N.'s resolution. Again, while a lot of it degraded, it doesn't mean he didn't have it, keep it, or try to use it etc. But no, it's not the only reason for the invasion, nor was it the only proposed.
According to your own source intelligence services found time and time again he had no WMDs.

Suicidesoldier#1
As far as your first idea that the Persian gulf war was only around the Nayirah testimony?

The criticism, has mostly been, that the Iraqi's returned the incubators and only killed 100 babies, instead of several hundred. But the fact still remains he killed at least 10,000 people with poison gas and nerve gas, literally the single most painful way to die, and countless more people who died from side effects years later. He was waging a campaign of genocide and tried to wipe out the kurds, whom he killed hundreds of thousands of, and presumably into the millions since so many people can't be accounted for. If that's not a call for war, I don't know what is. What, so I mean, let's pretend the testimony was a farce and Iraq had only killed 2 babies. In what way does this invalidate the rest of what Saddam did?
Revelation
On March 15, 1991, shortly after Kuwait was liberated, John Martin, an ABC reporter, reported that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors stopped working or fled the country" and discovered that Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."

They didn't kill babies, period. The entire accusation was wrong. Sure, they started a war, but they didn't start a ******** genocide. Overall it doesn't seem much worse than what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq when the US and affiliates invaded in 2001 respectively 2003.

Suicidesoldier#1
Also Iran attacked first and we were reluctant to help out either side until the U.N. called for an intervention. Since we neither destroyed Iran or Iraq our goal was mostly to end the fighting.
Wikipedia
The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via simultaneous invasions by air and land on 22 September 1980.
Nope.


Suicidesoldier#1
As well, we've supported lots of people with a history of problems. Cuba, for instance, we initially supported the overthrow of the previous government, until a worse man came to power. Britain had anti-Semitic views and refused to defend Israel when they literally left them to die in in the 6 day war. So, yes, we've supported a lot of organizations who weren't necessarily right in order to quell violence and put an end to fighting. This was WWI, and WWII, where we put an end to the bloodshed, which both of which were presumably "just another European war". France, Britain, Spain, Germany, had all been allies and enemies at one point before.
"Put an end to the bloodshed" my a**. Putting aside that the US didn't win the war on its own it was of utmost importance for the economy of the US that Germany didn't win either war. Besides, the US was never neutral, there was just a time before and after they started actively shooting the other guys.


Suicidesoldier#1
We've always been reluctant to intervene. Perhaps too much so. It's not until American soil is attacked or we're faced with massive bloodshed that we suddenly intervene when we could have prevented it, earlier.

I'll agree that had we just stepped in sooner, we could have solved the issues. But the idea that now that we're invading we're evil? Kind of silly.
The USA is the most proactive country with regards to foreign affairs, from trade agreements (that ruined Haitis economy, for example) to starting wars to supporting rebells to overthrow governments (which took land from US companies and gave it to the local farmers) and installing puppet dictators (which took the land back frm the farmers).
Granted, other countries and the EU do this kind of stuff, too, but not on that scale. Yet.
Lord Karev's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

5,700 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • First step to fame 200
  • Popular Thread 100
Now everyone will make this thread reach a million pages. rolleyes
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The20
Suicidesoldier#1
The20
Desert Storm 2 was started on the grounds that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and that he was supporting al-Qaida. No WMDs were found and afaik no connections between Saddam and al-Qaida could be proven. The entire basis for this war were lies or unfunded accusations.
Oh, and Saddam was evil? Well, maybe the US should have thought of that when they supported him during the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties.

This gem that was part of the campaign to get the rest of the world involved in the first Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

On a side note, who tortures detainees in a detention camp inside an US military base if not the US?


The military builds the bases, but the military does not operate in them. Iraqi forces for instance, were responsible for such things, and
Iraqi forces are in Guantanamo Bay?

Suicidesoldier#1
There were many justifications for the war, such as previous human rights abuses, including the Halajba poison gas attacks, the An-Anfal Genocide,, his sub-sequent violation of his treaty and attempted *second* invasion into Kuwait, and he did in fact have weapons of mass destruction in 1991; there was no reason to believe he wouldn't, now.
Of course, since they were sold to him by the west. However, i was talking about the second Gulf War, with GWB Junior, no the first with GWB Senior.

Suicidesoldier#1
He did in fact have what would classify as WMD's, but more importantly he had what was mostly botched materials. Since his poison gas and nerve gas degraded over time it likely would have been unable to kill as many people, but since he had tried before and was willing to use it, and obviously thought it would work, it does not in any way spare him from guilt or violation of his treaty for trying to develop working weapons. Some informants in Iraq did lie about the volume of potential materials present, but he still had at least 1000 tons of VX gas and 8500 liters of Anthrax still unaccounted for in the U.N.'s resolution. Again, while a lot of it degraded, it doesn't mean he didn't have it, keep it, or try to use it etc. But no, it's not the only reason for the invasion, nor was it the only proposed.
According to your own source intelligence services found time and time again he had no WMDs.

Suicidesoldier#1
As far as your first idea that the Persian gulf war was only around the Nayirah testimony?

The criticism, has mostly been, that the Iraqi's returned the incubators and only killed 100 babies, instead of several hundred. But the fact still remains he killed at least 10,000 people with poison gas and nerve gas, literally the single most painful way to die, and countless more people who died from side effects years later. He was waging a campaign of genocide and tried to wipe out the kurds, whom he killed hundreds of thousands of, and presumably into the millions since so many people can't be accounted for. If that's not a call for war, I don't know what is. What, so I mean, let's pretend the testimony was a farce and Iraq had only killed 2 babies. In what way does this invalidate the rest of what Saddam did?
Revelation
On March 15, 1991, shortly after Kuwait was liberated, John Martin, an ABC reporter, reported that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors stopped working or fled the country" and discovered that Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."

They didn't kill babies, period. The entire accusation was wrong. Sure, they started a war, but they didn't start a ******** genocide. Overall it doesn't seem much worse than what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq when the US and affiliates invaded in 2001 respectively 2003.

Suicidesoldier#1
Also Iran attacked first and we were reluctant to help out either side until the U.N. called for an intervention. Since we neither destroyed Iran or Iraq our goal was mostly to end the fighting.
Wikipedia
The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via simultaneous invasions by air and land on 22 September 1980.
Nope.


Suicidesoldier#1
As well, we've supported lots of people with a history of problems. Cuba, for instance, we initially supported the overthrow of the previous government, until a worse man came to power. Britain had anti-Semitic views and refused to defend Israel when they literally left them to die in in the 6 day war. So, yes, we've supported a lot of organizations who weren't necessarily right in order to quell violence and put an end to fighting. This was WWI, and WWII, where we put an end to the bloodshed, which both of which were presumably "just another European war". France, Britain, Spain, Germany, had all been allies and enemies at one point before.
"Put an end to the bloodshed" my a**. Putting aside that the US didn't win the war on its own it was of utmost importance for the economy of the US that Germany didn't win either war. Besides, the US was never neutral, there was just a time before and after they started actively shooting the other guys.


Suicidesoldier#1
We've always been reluctant to intervene. Perhaps too much so. It's not until American soil is attacked or we're faced with massive bloodshed that we suddenly intervene when we could have prevented it, earlier.

I'll agree that had we just stepped in sooner, we could have solved the issues. But the idea that now that we're invading we're evil? Kind of silly.
The USA is the most proactive country with regards to foreign affairs, from trade agreements (that ruined Haitis economy, for example) to starting wars to supporting rebells to overthrow governments (which took land from US companies and gave it to the local farmers) and installing puppet dictators (which took the land back frm the farmers).
Granted, other countries and the EU do this kind of stuff, too, but not on that scale. Yet.


No, according to my sources he had WMD's, and the remaining stuff that couldn't be accounted for had degraded. That doesn't in fact mean he had gotten rid of them, or that he wouldn't have tried to use them. He had lots of illegal weapons, than he gave *most* of them to the U.N. For all intents and purposes, just because he made shitty nerve gas does not in fact mean he wasn't trying to make more. Since he still had materials that were degraded it was still a significant threat, in that he could have used them if he knew how to take care of them over time. Since very little of what was left was useful most of his artillery shells and things would have simply been duds, but that doesn't mean he didn't have them.

As well, he did have babies die, and yes, he was waging genocide. The question is how many, how accurate was the testimony etc. For you to say no babies died when the Iraqi's returned several incubators is kind of stupid; clearly, those children would have likely died if they stole any incubator's at all. In any case, it wasn't the only reason for the invasion, a few hundred people compared to the nearly 200,000 confirmed deaths doesn't suddenly invalidate those attacks.


As well, the beginning of the war does not preclude the border skirmishes. Since Iran initially spurred revolutions, assassinations, and border skirmishes with Iraq, they attacked first.

Iraq, some years later, retaliated with massive force. That was the beginning of the war. It was not in fact, the beginning of the conflict.


We are in fact, one of the most active countries in foreign affairs.

But we do try to avoid it. We always have. I mean Saddam Hussein killed over 200,000 civilians in genocide. We should have squashed him then.


He signed peace treaties not to invade Kuwait, again. But again, he invaded.

So we invaded again. At the end of the Persian gulf war we set a list of demands he never really met. When he finally violated several obvious things such as re-engaging his plan for kurdish genocide, we attacked again. So that way really the major reason for intervention a second time in Iraq. But again, we've supported lots of people we didn't like; we were allies with Britain who actively suppressed Ghandi whom we supported. In the Vietnam war we supported both the French and the Viet Cong initially, of which we were secretly trying to get the Viet Cong to win. Politics is a funny thing. But I think at the time with our supposed European allies the actions taken made sense.
Mark_Karev
azulmagia
All empires are ipso facto evil.
Ipso facto?


Dictionaries are available, use them.
Fire 0ak's avatar

Buggy Mage

Suicidesoldier#1
But don't you think that the Untied States tends to behave like a Tyrant? Or perhaps see how it could be perceived as such? America should really try to focus on what's happening on our own nations soil. We should stop our companies from exporting what once used to be reliable jobs, overseas. Just so companies can save a ton of money paying unethical wages to people in other countries, and provide very unsafe work conditions for them as well.
Our country should not act like it has authority in Europe or anywhere else in the world because it definitely gets noticed by people the world over. Those kind of strutting displays draw negative attention which could be easily used to justify war upon the US.

As for the Irag conflict, why did it need to happen? Weren't we supposed to be looking in Afghanistan? Seems to me that alone is evidence that our Government's motives were more than they appeared to be.
I highly doubt their primary reasoning was to be savior to the Iraqi people.
Lets not forget that d**k Chenney was formerly a high executive at Haliburton co., which was contracted to rebuild after the air bombing strikes initiated on a populated city. I think it would be hard for them to convince the American people to perceive airstrikes like that, and the many that continue via unmanned aircraft as honorable.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Fire 0ak
Suicidesoldier#1
But don't you think that the Untied States tends to behave like a Tyrant? Or perhaps see how it could be perceived as such? America should really try to focus on what's happening on our own nations soil. We should stop our companies from exporting what once used to be reliable jobs, overseas. Just so companies can save a ton of money paying unethical wages to people in other countries, and provide very unsafe work conditions for them as well.
Our country should not act like it has authority in Europe or anywhere else in the world because it definitely gets noticed by people the world over. Those kind of strutting displays draw negative attention which could be easily used to justify war upon the US.

As for the Irag conflict, why did it need to happen? Weren't we supposed to be looking in Afghanistan? Seems to me that alone is evidence that our Government's motives were more than they appeared to be.
I highly doubt their primary reasoning was to be savior to the Iraqi people.
Lets not forget that d**k Chenney was formerly a high executive at Haliburton co., which was contracted to rebuild after the air bombing strikes initiated on a populated city. I think it would be hard for them to convince the American people to perceive airstrikes like that, and the many that continue via unmanned aircraft as honorable.


Iraq is destroyed because Saddam Commissioned air strikes in the surrounding cities in an attempt to promote widespread violence and chaos so he could escape on foot and leave the country. If he flew out of the country, he would be clearly spotted by satellite; so his objective was to create as a chaotic a situation as possible, and then escape in the chaos.

Contrary to popular belief, more than one thing can happen at once. So, if both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war were happening, than their connection is arbitrary; I.E. on a timeline.


We had been talking about invading Iraq for quite some time. We had already invaded before and only allowed Saddam to leave on the context that he get rid of his nuclear weapons, anthrax, nerve gas, and never attack Kuwait, Kurdistan or any other country again. He not only never fully full-filled getting rid of the agents, but he had attacked Kuwait and Kurdistan again, both people he had waged genocide campaigns against and used illegal poison gas.

So Saddam committed horrible acts in the past and we only let him live based on the notion that he would never attack anyone again; he attacked them again, so we made good on our promise for the Kurdistan people and attacked, again. So essentially it was a continuation of a nearly 12 year conflict, probably longer depending on the time frame.


The U.S. gets involved in foreign affairs. Getting involved in foreign affairs isn't too bad.

Hitler came to power in 1933. If we had stopped him before 1943, when we invaded, a lot of bloodshed could have been averted. It was our reluctance to get involved in foreign affairs that could have stopped him before he got too powerful. We had the power to avert casualties and we didn't, based on the mentality we A- didn't want to look like a Tyrant and B- we didn't want to get involved in foreign affairs and C- we wanted to remain isolationist and not worry about other people.


But in our blind devotion to this mentality we let 60-100 million people die and eventually we had to intervene with millions of our people which hurt our economy and took many of our own people's lives.

Was that the right thing to do? We let 200,000 people die before we invaded Iraq for very reasons. We let an entire people remain oppressed, 35 million people, for over 20 years. To be pitted in pointless wars where the people, with no political side of their own, had to fight or face complete destruction. Would it have been right to just let them die, and let Saddam do whatever he wanted?


The fact he was using nerve gas, and biological weapons, and radioactive weapons, in combat, alone proves he was willing to go to any lengths to hurt people and achieve his goals, in some cases pure genocide against unarmed people, and he had world domination on the list.

If we just let him do whatever he wanted, he's just absorb other dictatorships, become more powerful, and then become a real threat, this of course after the millions upon millions dead. Would that be a solution? It just makes no sense. I honestly don't think America wants to do it; again, we should have done it years ago. But we do because someone has to, because it's the right thing to do.


Not only are the Kurdistan people not being slaughtered, and the Kuwait, and all of his neighbors, but the Iraqi people are free.

I'd talk about woman's rights, how woman can vote, and do what they want now, but... honestly, men can vote too. So I mean... yeah.


Do I think we need to change business practices? Of course. There are drug cartels, and outsourcing, and all kinds of things that are going on.

But what do we do? Make it illegal to buy goods from another country, make it illegal to manufacture it in another country? How do we specifically isolate outsourcing without disallowing foreign goods, exactly? And if we made this policy over night how many businesses would be shut down? And what about the banks; they can do whatever they want!


"America" isn't doing anything, but the globalist capitalist market. People are saying we should do something about it.

Okay, now we're intervening more. The problem with this mentality is that it's a double edged sword. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If you mean America as a whole, (as in the civilians), no we are not evil. I don't want to say our government is evil either, that is subjective but like any other government, has some form of corruption. That being said, I think we get a lot of s**t for it from other countries because we're a super power. Honestly, I don't really know though.
Fire 0ak's avatar

Buggy Mage

Suicidesoldier#1
Iraq is destroyed because Saddam Commissioned air strikes in the surrounding cities in an attempt to promote widespread violence and chaos so he could escape on foot and leave the country. If he flew out of the country, he would be clearly spotted by satellite; so his objective was to create as a chaotic a situation as possible, and then escape in the chaos.

Contrary to popular belief, more than one thing can happen at once. So, if both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war were happening, than their connection is arbitrary; I.E. on a timeline.


We had been talking about invading Iraq for quite some time. We had already invaded before and only allowed Saddam to leave on the context that he get rid of his nuclear weapons, anthrax, nerve gas, and never attack Kuwait, Kurdistan or any other country again. He not only never fully full-filled getting rid of the agents, but he had attacked Kuwait and Kurdistan again, both people he had waged genocide campaigns against and used illegal poison gas.

So Saddam committed horrible acts in the past and we only let him live based on the notion that he would never attack anyone again; he attacked them again, so we made good on our promise for the Kurdistan people and attacked, again. So essentially it was a continuation of a nearly 12 year conflict, probably longer depending on the time frame.


The U.S. gets involved in foreign affairs. Getting involved in foreign affairs isn't too bad.

Hitler came to power in 1933. If we had stopped him before 1943, when we invaded, a lot of bloodshed could have been averted. It was our reluctance to get involved in foreign affairs that could have stopped him before he got too powerful. We had the power to avert casualties and we didn't, based on the mentality we A- didn't want to look like a Tyrant and B- we didn't want to get involved in foreign affairs and C- we wanted to remain isolationist and not worry about other people.


But in our blind devotion to this mentality we let 60-100 million people die and eventually we had to intervene with millions of our people which hurt our economy and took many of our own people's lives.

Was that the right thing to do? We let 200,000 people die before we invaded Iraq for very reasons. We let an entire people remain oppressed, 35 million people, for over 20 years. To be pitted in pointless wars where the people, with no political side of their own, had to fight or face complete destruction. Would it have been right to just let them die, and let Saddam do whatever he wanted?


The fact he was using nerve gas, and biological weapons, and radioactive weapons, in combat, alone proves he was willing to go to any lengths to hurt people and achieve his goals, in some cases pure genocide against unarmed people, and he had world domination on the list.

If we just let him do whatever he wanted, he's just absorb other dictatorships, become more powerful, and then become a real threat, this of course after the millions upon millions dead. Would that be a solution? It just makes no sense. I honestly don't think America wants to do it; again, we should have done it years ago. But we do because someone has to, because it's the right thing to do.


Not only are the Kurdistan people not being slaughtered, and the Kuwait, and all of his neighbors, but the Iraqi people are free.

I'd talk about woman's rights, how woman can vote, and do what they want now, but... honestly, men can vote too. So I mean... yeah.


Do I think we need to change business practices? Of course. There are drug cartels, and outsourcing, and all kinds of things that are going on.

But what do we do? Make it illegal to buy goods from another country, make it illegal to manufacture it in another country? How do we specifically isolate outsourcing without disallowing foreign goods, exactly? And if we made this policy over night how many businesses would be shut down? And what about the banks; they can do whatever they want!


"America" isn't doing anything, but the globalist capitalist market. People are saying we should do something about it.

Okay, now we're intervening more. The problem with this mentality is that it's a double edged sword. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I just don't understand how going after Al Qaeda, who were claimed responsible for attacking the world trade center, resulted in us going in Iraqi and then searching and acquiring them. Were Al Qaeda thought to be in Iraq or something? It kinda seemed like a side track to me.

As for America not stopping bad things from happening around the world. There are far too many wrongs going on in this world for the United States to keep up with, surely some just as urgent as the problems in Iraq. (Mexico, North Korea, parts of Africa) Why not put full resource into helping Mexico with it's cartel problem for instance? It would benefit us both greatly and probably have a way more positive spin. I think going into Iraq without UN clearance was a very careless way to go about the decision. It was something that needed other countries say on the matter. Mostly because our decision to enact war with Iraq was such a long reach in authority. If it was agreed upon by many countries surrounding, only then should the invasion of iraq have been initiated.

The Iraq conflict is distinctly different from the German conflict because It was drastically affecting the many surrounding countries. That would be similar to asking permission to help someone whose running from a wolf. It was implied we should help in Europe, while in Iraq we had significantly less support, and that looked bad to other countries and their citizens. We really should have helped Iraq but we should have done it legitimately with support of countries who agreed with that course of action.

I dont think we should stop trade of goods, just trade of jobs. They should keep jobs here, most of all when the economy is in such a down turn. The economic downfalls of many of America's manufacturing Company's money-saving strategies are having a dramatic negative effect on our economy. Admittedly outsourcing is one of many problems with the US's economy but it is likely a large contributer.
Lord Karev's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

5,700 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • First step to fame 200
  • Popular Thread 100
azulmagia
Mark_Karev
azulmagia
All empires are ipso facto evil.
Ipso facto?


Dictionaries are available, use them.
Bwahahah -____-

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games