It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Frosty
What!?!?!? Maybe you forgot that Saddam attacked Kuwait FIRST. Kuwait had no feasible military, we came to their aid. We did not even dispose of Saddam the first time or impose a democracy!
The second war with Iraq should have came 10 years earlier when he repeatedly violated UN Sanctions.
Those UN workers you speak of sure did have lots of experience. Experience at what?
Finding WMD's that Suddam said weren't there? Yes! Someone needed to do something about it.
Remember what happened when Hitler and Rothschild amassed a gigantic military, an illegal military, and nobody did a single thing about it?
This is the same situation only Saddam continuely lied about the status of the WMDs. What makes you or anyone else think that this time was different?
Originally posted by Langolier
Another Fact: The US is incabable of doing anything right in the world's eye.
Originally posted by devilwasp
majic i'll take you up on that, should be interesting!
so are you meaning both military and economical or just one?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by Frosty
Delicate situations? When Somalian warlords where stealling food intended to go to the "truly" needy which was paid for by US dollars, we had a right to stick our nose in that business because it involved us as well.
really? so it was YOUR food and YOUR citizens huh?
dont think so.
delicate situation are situations which are not perfect but are not the worst they could be. thats how peace is established.
When Kim Jong Ill threatens our ally S.Korea and stockades an army that in turn allows for the inadequate feeding of his civilians, it is our business.
if the south korean's ask for your help then it is but until then no it isnt.
When a mad dictator named Suddam violates his terms of conditions and surrender layed out by the UN repeatadly, it becomes our business to intervene before the situation escalates to an all out war.
i take it these are the WMD claims huh? the massive arsesonel of one ton of radioactive (completely safe i might add) ore and one missplaced shell of chem warheads which most probably was supplied by the previos "freedom" president who is the current presidents father.
When a country whose leader praised the kidnapping of US workers in his country and does nothing to help relieve the situation but advertises for further events of similarity, we need to step in.
you need to save the workers not destroy the country.
When South American drug lords who illegal supply the US each year with tons of coc aine, and that nations government does not have the resources to combat, we need to take over the situation.
no you need to get the UN to take action. aka you need to push and get countries around the globe to help.
now lets see 1 superpower versus drug lords. tough battle.
UN versus drug lords. easy battle.
[edit on 1-12-2004 by devilwasp]
Originally posted by Otts
How about we ask the opposite question... What would the US like the world to do?
Originally posted by Otts
About what the world wishes from the US, what Worldwatcher said. A lot of times, when a treaty like Kyoto fails, it's because the US torpedoes it.
Originally posted by Otts
Also, a lot of us would like the US to understand that if we disagree with you on something and make it known, it doesn't automatically mean we hate the US - it means we have our own opinion, and often our own national interests to defend.
Originally posted by Otts
And btw... CONGRATS Majic on getting the WATS award!!!
Originally posted by Majic
Now, to try fruitlessly to live up to the responsibilites that come with the badge...
Originally posted by Otts
Hope you fare better than I did! *jokingly self-deprecating laughter*
It is belittling when people say they hate the President mainly because it bleeds down to us. It is a fair connection to say that if you hate our leader or country then you can deduce that you hate us.............we put him there.
Originally posted by cargo
It is belittling when people say they hate the President mainly because it bleeds down to us. It is a fair connection to say that if you hate our leader or country then you can deduce that you hate us.............we put him there.
Something like 40% of Americans voted right? So roughly 21% of Americans put Bush there, right? That leaves a whole 79% of Americans who either didnt vote for Bush or didnt vote at all.
Now perhaps this isn't about not liking Americans for putting Bush in office , but rather not liking the 21% of Americans who put him there. So if you think it bleeds down onto you, you are probably part of that 21%.
So rather than say that the world hates Americans because they put Bush in office, you should remember that only a small percentage really put him there. In which case you are part of a minority of Americans who perceives that the world doesnt like you, the Republicans. The world therefore wouldnt have a problem with the rest of the American people.
By the way, I don't hate any Americans. Just trying to point out that you are divisive when you take your republican side domestically, but are happy to have the rest of your countrymen, regardless of political ideology, share your burden of perceived global hatred.
[edit on 1-12-2004 by cargo]