America: The Greatest Country In The World Or The Closest Thing To Hell On Earth
This is a thread to continue what Alpha Centauri and I have been arguing over for the last days or so. It started in General Comic Discussions in a thread about Canadian Superheroes http://www.killermovies.com/forums/...mp;pagenumber=4 - where things got a little out of hand. However, this is a good debate and if you feel like joining in feel free to do so.
Alpha Centauri
Firstly, Saddam lead them in circles when there were only arranged inspections. After the inspectors started arriving unannounced and still found no WMDs the Bush administration didn't like it so once again they started linking them to Al Qaida and insisting that somewhere there MUST be WMDs. So they spent millions on this campaign, people lost lives. Innocents on both sides. For nothing. Well, not totally nothing, Saddam is out of power and yes he flaunted international laws for quite some time but it wasn't a new thing, they waited long enough to act.
They did wait long enough to act. But should they have waited longer? Maybe we should've waited until he decides to up the genocide numbers into the millions then the world should intervene. Or maybe until he actually has nukes then we should react right. Maybe we should even have tried to appease him like the most European nations when Hitler began his conquest of other nations & gaining power as it went on.
Now if they were to attack during the Clinton administration than, what good excuses would there be for such an attack that the world wouldn't criticize America for being a warmonger & imperialist? Saddam and America's critics would have labeled Clinton and America as warmongers & imperialist looking to enrich their pockets with Iraqi oil to boost their booming economy even more, claming that America's stirring up trouble in times of peace.
-Yeah it was happening for 10 years. They could have ended it during the Gulf "War". They didn't for their own personal gain and Saddam continued his ways. Why has it taken so long to go back? Get all you need and then when Iraq have nothing left to give to you, it means they are eraseable?
Agreed. America should have ended that war by taking out Saddam - yet we procrastinated in a way. However, it was George Bush senior who did it for his own political gain. The economy was in a slump (which the president was blamed for this) and reelection was coming close, so Bush senior decide to pull out to save his own popularity from dropping even more. *I hate George W. Bush (junior) as much as anyone. He's one of the most conservative republicans around, always referring to Jesus as his inspiration and that he felt it was God meant for him to become the president. Religion and politics shouldn't mix in my opinion.* However, I applaud that he took a stand (arrogance if you wanna call it, he kind is) even though most countries were against it.
Regarding why it took so long to go back, that entire operation was a U.N. thing but America dedicated more troops than any other country. If you have a problem with one country waging war with another over oil issues, then blame every country that was involved - whether it be sending troops or financing. Don't just point your finger at America, try the U.N. Furthermore, that continuation of oil flow from Kuwait was not just America or those countries who participated; it meant that most countries getting oil from the Middle East/Kuwait benefited as well. If anyone had a problem with this invasion, then they should've STOPPED BUYING GAS & DRIVING. If Saddam had gotten Kuwait, oil prices would've gone up and that's why the U.N. intervene. This whole deal about America being a no give, no gain country is pure bullcrap 'cause other countries were involved as well.
-He never hated America. He hated the administration. I hate the administration. Are the US Army coming after me? Wanting Nukes, when weighed against the possibility of him getting them is totally different.
Yeah, he loves America. I hate this administration too (but you can't blame America itself for it). I am happy that Saddam's ass is out. If you wanna start pointing to the innocents killed, people die in wars for one. Two, the insurgence are the ones killing more innocents then American soldiers. Three, Saddam let loose most, if not every, Iraqi criminals just before the war started - have you ever thought that they contributed the killings of innocent lives? All I'm hearing is how America is responsible for the death of these innocent lives.
-What he was doing to his own people was filthy but the stuff he was using for the most part, were supplied by the US. Besides he was doing it for as you said, over 10 years. What stopped the US from kkilling him when they had the chance if they KNEW he'd do it again? Or did Saddam say "Sorry" and the US believe him? He invaded Kuwait because they started arming themselves with tanks and progressing into the Iraq/Kuwait border. Tanks coincidentally supplied by George Bush.
Supplies that he bought from us during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran was an enemy to America so we help Iraq out - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," ever heard that line? We didn't supply these weapons so he can kill his own people; he can you blame us for that? You think we would have sold them if we knew of such intent? Give us some credit, we're not as backstabbing/murderous as you or most think. Furthermore, other countries sold Iraq weapons as well.
Stop what? He gassed his own people right AFTER the coalition had pulled out - you think we wouldn't have taken him out if we knew that he'd pull something like that on his own people (especially gassing them)? And don't just blame America, this was a coalition effort. Why didn't any other countries intervened? Why is it always America that has to bleed? Others could have done this as well; the Persian Gulf neighbors the Asian & European countries.
Tanks on the Iraq/Kuwait borders? He invaded the country & annexed it because of oil and wanting Kuwait to be part of Iraq again. And what's wrong with any country wanting to arm themselves, does a country not have rights to arm themselves? It wasn't the armament that caused the invasion, oil & the loan was the reason.
= Continuing = Too long to post in one post.
-See Above.
-Threat to the international community? Ha. America is a floating iron fortress compared to Iraq. Iraq are a threat to no one. The only time they posed a tiny thread was when they kept getting armed by America.
Floating Iron Fortress? Yet a terrorist group (not a country) was able to kill thousands of American's on American soil. Look at the "Six Day War" where Israel, a small newly reestablished country, was attacked on nearly all sides by it's wealthy Arab neighbors, yet Israel won that war within six days. The U.S.S.R./Soviets can be classified as a "floating iron fortress" as well, but they lost the war to Afghanistan, who's military might isn't even on Iraq's level. Iraq's military was the 5th largest in the world during the Gulf War. It might not be as strong now, but its resources make it a formidable. A terrorist organization was able to hurt America - think what a country can do. Just 'cause America is a Super Power doesn't mean were invulnerable and should not try to protect ourselves.
If you want proof that the US are a give-to-receive country you need only look at Africa. Potentially the richest place on the planet and the only reason it isn't is because of America. Gives a little then takes a lot. You think if America seriously helped another country, and got nothing in return, that they would do so again? No way. Bush wanted to win the industrial vote when he sold 140 fighter jets to Korea now Korea are biting them on the ass saying "Give us money or we'll attack" in some way shape or form. So America proceeded to pretend they are some incredible threat. Then again even America aren't as stupid to go in and attack North Korea.
Why isn't Africa the richest place? Give some details please like I have, not just "look it up."
Regarding the U.S. doing something nice again, have any OTHER countries spent millions or billions and military troops to stop A genocide? Hell, there's a genocide going on in Sudan where the Islamic Republic of Sudan is killing millions of people. Sudan isn't that far from the Europeans so why don't they do something about it? Shows you how much of a no give, no gain group of countries they are. It's always, "Oh we get involved...but you - America - should go in first." If you don't believe me, look at the Korean War where the U.S. had more troops committed than any other country in the coalition and the Persian Gulf War (same here as well). American troops are still guarding the 38th parallel and protecting South Korea - self-fish? Ya riiiight. We've sent millions to fight against AIDS in Africa.
Solution: America and every other country should get off its ass and deal with this genocide in Sudan. The U.N. is useless - they've only dealt with two conflicts and most were lead by America. Is the U.N. good for anything? There's a freaken genocide in Sudan.
Why would we attack North Korea? They have nukes, but we'll deal with them through economic sanctions and such. Unlike Iraq, the only time North Korea attacked another country was during the Korean War and that was under a different dictator. Economic sanctions & other means of persuasion were used against Iraq already. Trying it again wouldn't have worked. His administration has proved that he would harm his neighboring countries, unlike North Korea's current administration. There's a lot of threats by the current North Korea but no such actions as that of which Saddam has done.
It's not the greatest country. You say Saddam killed many through genocide. So did Bush. Either way you look at it, this "war" has been such a farce that even the good that has come of it has been semi-cancelled out.[b/]
So did Bush? Remember what I wrote earlier? So did insurgents and they're still killing innocent civilians even when the Iraqi government is up and running - we handed the country back weeks ago. There's only some military troops left to help stabilize the country & give the government some power if needed. The good has been cancelled out? What news station have you been watching from - Al jazeera? And this isn't even over, history will ULTIMATELY show who's right and who's wrong on this. Don't just say that it didn't succeed. Their are failures (true) but also success as well. Though many have died, Iraq is a free nation. Do you even know how much that mean's? Don't just throw out that thousands have did because of this "war." Thousands more would have died if Saddam continued ruling. And when he dies of old age, his sons Odai or Qusai would've taken over and there much worse than their father, and so the cycle of tyranny continues and thousands more will die.
[b]
But...but by your logic, Iraq were a threat coz they could have had Nukes. We have them and we're no threat? The funny thing is, Saddam would never have used them coz he can't wipe USA off the map can he? If he nuked a part of the US then Iraq would cease to exist the next morning.
Obviously you missed or skipped this part in my earlier post: "There's a handful of countries that have nukes, but we DON'T go around bullying other countries, threatening them with nukes if we don't get what we want. These countries are the RESPONSIBLES, countries like North Korea or Iraq (if they had it) aren't.
Furthermore, America gave the secrets of nukes to its allies France & Great Britain to protect themselves after the Soviets finally developed their own nukes. And I doubt the French or British complained about THAT: secrets of a weapon of mass destruction. We even gave Israel nuke secrets to protect itself from its Arab neighbors. However, he these countries ever used nukes to threaten other countries and bully them around. These responsible countries wouldn't use nukes unless it was their last resort or another country is pointing nukes at them.
It is by no means the greatest country in the world.
I believe that Americans and their strong religious beliefs are greatly holding this country back.
Hollywood also exaggerates America's acceptance of "alternative lifestyles".
People in other countries watch our movies and TV programs and they get the idea that America is a very accepting, modern culture.
Nope.
The European Union and China will be the worlds next great superpowers.
America is crumbling.......in everything.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Wow! You guys started a thread about Canadian Comic Book superheroes, and then it turn into a debate about the war in Iraq, and George W. Bush? Gosh! You guys are amazing!
What's next? Chicken Noodle soup thread and then turns into an abortion debate? I wouldn't be surprise.
I was hoping to one day move to America, although i kind of think that setteling for London might be just as good. The more I read and hear about US the more its making me not want to go there.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
"Saddam and America's critics would have labeled Clinton and America as warmongers & imperialist looking to enrich their pockets with Iraqi oil to boost their booming economy even more, claming that America's stirring up trouble in times of peace."
How different is this to the administration now? If of course Warmongering and imperialism is your argument.
"Agreed. America should have ended that war by taking out Saddam - yet we procrastinated in a way. However, it was George Bush senior who did it for his own political gain. The economy was in a slump (which the president was blamed for this) and reelection was coming close, so Bush senior decide to pull out to save his own popularity from dropping even more. *I hate George W. Bush (junior) as much as anyone. He's one of the most conservative republicans around, always referring to Jesus as his inspiration and that he felt it was God meant for him to become the president. Religion and politics shouldn't mix in my opinion.* However, I applaud that he took a stand (arrogance if you wanna call it, he kind is) even though most countries were against it."
George Bush Jr is only in power, as we know, because of his daddy and his daddies cronies. I admire nothing about that man. He slapped truth and justice in the face as a favour to his Dad. He gives no **** about the American people or way. It's a pretty safe assumption to say that being as he got in through unjust means and against public vote, that his agenda has nothing to do with the general public of America. He has his own agenda. Actually no scrap that. Someone has their own agenda and Bush is the mindless maniac acting it all out.
"Regarding why it took so long to go back, that entire operation was a U.N. thing but America dedicated more troops than any other country. If you have a problem with one country waging war with another over oil issues, then blame every country that was involved - whether it be sending troops or financing. Don't just point your finger at America, try the U.N. Furthermore, that continuation of oil flow from Kuwait was not just America or those countries who participated; it meant that most countries getting oil from the Middle East/Kuwait benefited as well. If anyone had a problem with this invasion, then they should've STOPPED BUYING GAS & DRIVING. If Saddam had gotten Kuwait, oil prices would've gone up and that's why the U.N. intervene. This whole deal about America being a no give, no gain country is pure bullcrap 'cause other countries were involved as well."
Other countries were involved. Correct. Yet what you are failing to see is the fact that the US were the ones with the opportunity to kill Saddam Hussein. The didn't because if they did they wouldn't have got what they wanted. They were willing to arm Iraq so long as Iraq paid them back. It happened with France during the Persian Gulf thing. America threatened to remove what economical support they were providing if France didn't send troops in.
"Yeah, he loves America. I hate this administration too (but you can't blame America itself for it). I am happy that Saddam's ass is out. If you wanna start pointing to the innocents killed, people die in wars for one. Two, the insurgence are the ones killing more innocents then American soldiers. Three, Saddam let loose most, if not every, Iraqi criminals just before the war started - have you ever thought that they contributed the killings of innocent lives? All I'm hearing is how America is responsible for the death of these innocent lives. "
I never said Saddam loves America so don't put words into my mouth. Saddam is out now yeah. But again, he would have been 10 years ago if America put others before themselves and this wouldn't be neccessary. I'm not saying America are solely responsible for the loss of innocents but all you ever see is the bodies of troops on the news. What about the 9 year old Iraqi girl who got blown to pieces by a cruise missile? The point is WHY these people are dying. Over a farce and mess-up of an invasion for reasons that not even Bush or Blair were sure of. The main reason they went in there is because people wanted revenge for the events of 9/11 and as long as someone paid it didn't matter why. All Bush did was think up a pathetic reason that is only now being shown for what it was. Again, Saddam is out but the cost of getting him out is badly high considering it could have been over.
"Supplies that he bought from us during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran was an enemy to America so we help Iraq out - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," ever heard that line?"
I also heard "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours". The latter quote being more appropriate.
"We didn't supply these weapons so he can kill his own people; he can you blame us for that? You think we would have sold them if we knew of such intent? Give us some credit, we're not as backstabbing/murderous as you or most think."
How silly. They knew he was a nutcase yet they give him weapons just so they don't get blood on their hands. That's just bounty hunting on a global scale. "We're gonna give you mad dangerous weapons Saddam, but you be a good boy and only use them to help us. Don't you dare use them to become a powerful, menacing figurehead in your small country." You don't freakin arm someone with DANGEROUS weapons, more to the point a maniac, and then moan when they use em for bad purposes. Considering America are the first ones to complain how dangerous the world is, maybe they should quit arming the nutcases first instead of using the power they have to calm the disgruntled masses with what was essentially a giant fireworks display.
"Stop what? He gassed his own people right AFTER the coalition had pulled out - you think we wouldn't have taken him out if we knew that he'd pull something like that on his own people (especially gassing them)? And don't just blame America, this was a coalition effort. Why didn't any other countries intervened? Why is it always America that has to bleed? Others could have done this as well; the Persian Gulf neighbors the Asian & European countries."
Oh I'm not just blaming America, we had ****in morons leading us back then. John Major being the Prime Minister. UK have always been America's ***** when it comes to military use. The UK government know we need America's help so when America call we come running. Hence why US is a no receive no give country. You think if UK wasn't so dependant on US force that we would have gone in there? I doubt it but it wasn't a hard sell for John Major. Two predominantly white nations going and blowing the **** out of a small middle eastern nation who really aren't as much of a threat as people wanted them to believe.
"Tanks on the Iraq/Kuwait borders? He invaded the country & annexed it because of oil and wanting Kuwait to be part of Iraq again. And what's wrong with any country wanting to arm themselves, does a country not have rights to arm themselves? It wasn't the armament that caused the invasion, oil & the loan was the reason."
Back to the backstabbing sentiment. Bush was best pals with Saddam when he wanted Iran out of the way. As soon as he needs Iraq done in he sells tanks to their enemy. Can you blame Saddam for being a little angry? Right to arm themselves? Sure. But since when did America have the right to be an international armoury all of a sudden?
"The U.S.S.R./Soviets can be classified as a "floating iron fortress" as well, but they lost the war to Afghanistan, who's military might isn't even on Iraq's level. Iraq's military was the 5th largest in the world during the Gulf War. It might not be as strong now, but its resources make it a formidable. A terrorist organization was able to hurt America - think what a country can do. Just 'cause America is a Super Power doesn't mean were invulnerable and should not try to protect ourselves."
Protect yourselves but not arming the world, might be a start. As for Iraq having the 5th largest army in the world, there's 4 infront of those. One of which is the US Army. So you see....
"American troops are still guarding the 38th parallel and protecting South Korea - self-fish? Ya riiiight. We've sent millions to fight against AIDS in Africa."
Yeah at the same time shipping money and provisions to North Korea because they're browning their panties about N.Korea having nukes or nuclear capabilities. Wow, troops fighting AIDS? America really must be in with the bloodlust stereotype if they're fighting medical issues with gunfire.
"Economic sanctions & other means of persuasion were used against Iraq already. Trying it again wouldn't have worked. His administration has proved that he would harm his neighboring countries, unlike North Korea's current administration. There's a lot of threats by the current North Korea but no such actions as that of which Saddam has done."
They were used in Iraq already? Oh you mean trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to fly to the States? Of course. Threats from North Korea haven't been acted out because nuking America or anyone else probably isn't something they want on their resume right now. Saddam's missiles can't even reach the outskirts of Iran. Big threat.
"Though many have died, Iraq is a free nation. Do you even know how much that mean's? Don't just throw out that thousands have did because of this "war." Thousands more would have died if Saddam continued ruling. And when he dies of old age, his sons Odai or Qusai would've taken over and there much worse than their father, and so the cycle of tyranny continues and thousands more will die."
Free nation? Ok I'll let this opinion intrigue me for a while. When Iraq starts to get on it's feet again we'll see just how much America takes as interest for getting Saddam out.
"There's a handful of countries that have nukes, but we DON'T go around bullying other countries, threatening them with nukes if we don't get what we want. These countries are the RESPONSIBLES, countries like North Korea or Iraq (if they had it) aren't."
True. America don't bully with nukes. They just do it through threatening to cripple economies. Hence why they have their finger in so many international economic pies. So if they need something they can take it or take back what they put in. As I said, it happened with France.
"Furthermore, America gave the secrets of nukes to its allies France & Great Britain to protect themselves after the Soviets finally developed their own nukes. And I doubt the French or British complained about THAT: secrets of a weapon of mass destruction. We even gave Israel nuke secrets to protect itself from its Arab neighbors. However, he these countries ever used nukes to threaten other countries and bully them around. These responsible countries wouldn't use nukes unless it was their last resort or another country is pointing nukes at them."
So just because America got lucky with arming a few of the responsibles, it takes away the fact that they are actually going around GIVING COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOTHING, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? No it doesn't. America needs to...I dunno. Stop giving nukes to everyone. Might make the world safer. Dunno. A thought is all it is.
So just because America got lucky with arming a few of the responsibles, it takes away the fact that they are actually going around GIVING COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOTHING, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? No it doesn't. America needs to...I dunno. Stop giving nukes to everyone. Might make the world safer. Dunno. A thought is all it is.
^
__________________
Life is short and the art long, the occasion instant, experiment perilous, decision difficult.
"I'm gonna say America is the greatest country in the world. Because I'm American...
I would expect anyone from another country to have similar pride for the country they live in."
I live in England and the place is a shithole. It's become an overhyped, fevered dog patch where the real essense of what made the country great has faded for puppet celebrities and lame tv shows. I don't believe in patriotism because all it is.....is land. It doesn't require your pride. I could have been born in Japan or anywhere else. It's chance. No reason to be proud.
KMC Community Forums
I hate this administration too (but you can't blame America itself for it). I am happy that Saddam's ass is out. If you wanna start pointing to the innocents killed, people die in wars for one. Two, the insurgence are the ones killing more innocents then American soldiers. Three, Saddam let loose most, if not every, Iraqi criminals just before the war started - have you ever thought that they contributed the killings of innocent lives? All I'm hearing is how America is responsible for the death of these innocent lives. 
Jul 22nd, 2004 11:43 PM
I'll just wait for tex to read it and post...
^
