American Government: Reaching Too Far?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by grazzhoppa, Sep 20, 2002.

  1. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    In my opinion, the government is acting like imperialist nation, it may be an imperialist nation to some people's definitions of the word or might not be. Why is it, the American government can go into other countries, take over, set up a new government....that will benefit America....and then trapes on down the line, as with Iraq and soon other countries on the "Axis of Evil" list...sidenote: isn't Axis of Evil a little childish title...and the countries on the list aren't all working for the same interests why call it an "axis"?

    Anyway, is the only reason other countries aren't stopping us and saying, "HEY! stop rolling over other countries in the name of freedom!" because America has more bombs, technology, and practically rules the world? Yes, America is the greatest nation in the world, in the sense of how many people it affects. Does Tony Blair really believe it's right to invade Iraq for moral reasons or is it because he wants to stay buddy buddy with big America? If he opposes it, would it harm the relationship of American government and British government?

    As many people are thinking, what evidence do we have against Iraq? The main point of what has beening flying around lately is they have weapons of mass destruction. Why is it that the Iraqi government would use such weapons on America? Aren't we the big scary bully of the world? Obviously if any attack happened, Iraq would be pummeled, completely taken down. Does the Iraqi government have the motive to hurt America for "their last stand?" There is a certainty that they would use whatever they have, to defend against an invasion. This situation is not assured mutual destruction, if Iraq attacked America...Iraq would face dire consequences of a full scale invasion (and I'm sure America would be backed by many countries). I personally believe they don't want to see that happen.

    If there was no terrorist attack on September 11th, would Bush and 57% of Americans (MSNBC poll) back this impending war?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    It is quite evident that Bush's new military policy is first strikes and unrivaled power.
    The only thing that could have been MORE overbearing and arrogant would be to say "I'm the boss of the world, now, and it's my way or the highway." I shudder to think what was left on the cutting room floor! And we wonder, “Why, oh why, do they hate us?” In his draft proposal to Congress, the President essentially wants them to allow him to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
    Our economy is going down the toilet while the boy king speaks of war and exercising American military might.


    Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
    It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
    it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.
    • -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that the way I think America is heading, with a President wanting to play a game of Risk. I had to say something when the headline for today's news paper said "Bush asks for power to hit Iraq"

    I would like to stress goofyfish's quote of Bush's proposel which is also posted on the front of The Star-Ledger (New Jersey news paper):

    "The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropiate, including defend the national security intersets of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq."

    Are we going to hit China next and every other nation having nuclear weapons?...which in case you didn't know nukes are a huge threat and China doesn't exactly love us.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Don H Registered Senior Member

    Bush is the unfit father to the world.

    The traditional forces that use our military for thier own business concerns wish they had someone better but the plan is central and Bush is incidental.
  8. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    I would like to hear from the Bush supporters too, get all the points in

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    How big is the mass destruction arsenal of the US, by the way?

    It cannot be as big as the MD devices of Iraq now, can it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well, I prefer to take the highway, rather than to follow mr. president bush, in any way.

    Sorry Grazzhoppa, every human with a little understanding sees the insanity of this pathetic excuse for a president.

    Anyone who wants to prove me wrong here? Come on up please...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Though he doesn't really need a reason anymore, does he..?
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Well lets try looking at this from a hypothetical plane, where you put forwards "What would you do in their shoes?".

    Lets say at first President Bush:

    Just over a year ago, your country is shocked at a blatent act of what is known as terrorism. It's terrorism because their was some reasoning behind the attacks, and they were corriagraphed.

    You realise a couple of things:
    1: Your outraged and you don't want to let this sort of thing happen to you, or your country during your administration.
    2: As mentioned previously your administration would suffer, but could gain if it's dealt with appropiately.
    3: "Oh! the years of Glory" reminising of what makes a country great, of long dead war hero's and heoric statements.

    Meanwhile as you sit in your office, behind the scenes Military officials skuttle around debating the current dilema. Each taking their own view and opinion, but at the end of the day they are all "military officials" so you can pretty much tell where this is going to head.

    Before you know it, they arrive to discuss with you their "strategy for dealing with terrorism", and it pretty muh means that because these terrorists can't be identified as one singular group, that anybody remotely or likely resembling any form of terrorism or hate towards the country gives reason that they should be pointed at and targetted in the "Anti-terrorist sights".

    Rather than just going it alone, a decision is made that "you should find other countries support" with the understanding that you know who supports you and who to be weary of.

    The problem is though, that due to your oil connections and your anti-green statements "which put the noses of governments out over Kyoto." Most people perceive war as just glory mongery and a money making strategy.

    As for Prime-Minister Tony Blair:

    He has been accused of being "Presidents Bush's Lapdog", at the end of the day if you were Tony you would be following a mixture of policy and the fact that for many years the country has had tighter relations with the USA.

    For instance there is a mixed historical statement where The USA bailed out Britain from Nazi occupation (to which some will say, "why did it take so long?")

    It can also be noted that Britain has had heavy investiments from the states, and also has at times helped fund the states when crisises arise. (If I remember correctly, the US ran out of bombs during Vietnam which Britain might of cough... cough... funded.)

    Britain at one point stepped back from the European Monetary Union which caused a Great British stock crash, but Britains economy only restabilised with the help of.... you guessed it... the USA.

    Is Tony a Lapdog now??? Well not really, at the end of the day he's working for his own country trying to make sure that the country remains stable.

    Again though there are statements about Terrorism, for years Britain suffered from Attacks from the Real IRA, as has Spain suffered with ETA. With each attack though in these countries, neither have waged a full blown war on terrorism, although the cost of all those that have died through the prolonged attacks is higher than that of the trade center.

    (What was mentioned was that the political faces of IRA for a time was funded by third generation Irishmen in the USA. Of course there is an air of change over Ireland nowadays.)

    If you were Saddam:

    Well other than topping yourself and giving it a rest with threats.
    You might be getting a real kick out of not letting people inspect, just so you can fake that you have things you don't have.

    For instance, He oculd pretend he has weapons pointed at people, but without an inspection team you don't know if this is true. It irrates a particular country that you have a greivance with, they verge on all out war, then you let the inspectors in to see what you haven't got, making that war verging country look like a complete asse.
  11. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    So what Stryderunknown is saying, is that Bush is going after Iraq to save the Rebuplican party, a politcal war? If true, the way American government opperates is truly, utterly sad.

    I don't think many people look at war as glorious (anymore) and what is mongery and glory mongery mean? War stirs the economy a bit but makes a bigger national debt...those bombs and fuel aren't cheap, you know!

    I'm pretty sure America wanted to stay nuetral in the beginning of WW2, they didn't want to send their boys to fight another continent's war. When Hitler made incredible advances so fast the threat of him taking over Europe and continuing across the Atlantic was too great, that's why the US "bailed out" Britian. And why does that show Britian and the US have tight relations...the US was protecting itself.

    If Saddam is really playing games with the UN and USA, he's more childish than Bush

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Does Saddam hate the US enough to go through being bombed regularly...just to make America look like a big, ugly giant named Bubba who swings his club at pathetic little-people?

    America has elections to find a person who will represent the majority of people (or in this case the electoral college's majority). Is Bush representing the majority of America with attacking Iraq? Tony Blair is doing good for his country, by keeping his country stable and on good terms with the US (as Stryderunknown pointed out).
  12. postoak Registered Senior Member

    It's a good question: "Why would Iraq want to use WMD against us?" Of course, since it is a dictatorship this really reads: "Why would Saddam want to use WMD against us?"

    I'm not saying he would, but an answer to that question might be "revenge". The U.S. is the country that cut this bully-boy down to size in 1991 and made him look like a fool. No doubt, he hates the U.S.

    He wouldn't have to use them directly, just slip them to Al Queda operatives.

    So, that's one answer.

    I've asked this on another thread. If Saddam has nothing to hide then why won't he let inspectors inspect? By doing so, he could have the onerous U.N. sanctions lifted.

    Do a web search on "Iraq nuclear weapons" and I think you'll see that he has done the work to build a bomb and now just needs the enriched uranium to make it work. This can be bought or acquired from another country.
  13. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    All you idiots who have posted since quite some time ago about how Saddam won't let inspectors in:

    he fucking said he'd let them in so fucking get off his fucking case, bush is one man too many to be mad at him for agreeing to do something he wanted him to do!
  14. kmguru Staff Member

    For thousands of years, war has always been political and lack of trust between parties.

    US point is, in the past, Sadam always said one thing but did something else. Deception is his ammo. So US wants to take out the cause that WOULD produce a nuclear bomb that he WOULD use against US or Israel (more like Israel) before he dies. That is his dream that he talked to his cabinet that was intercepted by you know who!

    Looks like US wants to be better now than be sorry....

    The problem is which face we should believe? And what are the risk factors for miscalculations (we could lose New York city).
  15. postoak Registered Senior Member

    GB -- sorry, but inspectors have to be able to go where they want -- and Saddam before and already again now has said they won't be allowed to go when and where they want.
  16. Emfuser Registered Senior Member

    I gave up on trying to defend Bush and other Republicans here. Too many people here are entrenched deep in conspiracy theories about how he's (supposedly) trying to run the world, destroy the constitution, spy on everyone, settle a family feud, bring the Illuminati to power, sell us out to aliens, and more nonsense.

    Waste of time with most of you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    At least you spoke up, I was beginning to think everyone here wants Bush to settle down and eat some pretzels

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    I am totally agreeing with what Grazz says here.

    'Saddam can make a Nuclear weapon in a matter of months if he gets the right equipment and expertise'

    Duh, anyone can. How many nukes do you think Bill Gates has?

    Even if Iraq lanched its nuke, what would happen then. Total retaliation from the States, total devastation, no remorse.

    There are many reasons Bush is pressing for war, many are just assumptions.

    Before Bush can actually do anything about Iraq, he needs some hard evidence to proof that Iraq has the stuff he says they've got.
  19. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Thor - do a websearch on "Iraq nuclear weapons" and tell me if you don't think there is evidence that Saddam has had a nuclear warhead development program.

    The Bill Gates analogy doesn't fit -- for several reasons -- first, you can't develop such a weapon without being in charge of a state, second, as far as I know, Bill Gates isn't a sociopathic killer, and third, he has no need to revenge himself against the U.S.

    If Saddam developed a nuclear bomb and then had his own operatives or Al Queda operatives sneak it into the U.S. and detonate it, how would the U.S. know that it was Saddam that did it and so how would they know to destroy Saddam? Al Queda could have gotten the bomb from Pakistan or the Russian Mafia or (once they get them), Iran or North Korea.

    We do need evidence and that's why inspectors, with unhindered access, are necessary.

    I ask again, if Iraq doesn't have anything to hide then why won't they allow the U. N. inspectors back in and give them unhindered access?
  20. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    Actually, didn't the US start to pull out the inspectors before Saddam gave them ye 'ole boot

    Who says Bill Gates wants to launch it at the US? He could use it to blow up LINUX or MAC HQ.

    If a Nuke was let off in the US by a terrorist organisation, would the US government push even more for invading all countries affiliated with terrorists, Iraq included?
  21. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    If a nuke was detonated anywhere in the world (against another country), it would be the beginning of WW3

    If the nuke was set on America, or any of America's friends, you will see an immediate response on the attackers from America, the UN, NATO, every other alliance connected to the US. I would even go with invading every terrorist connected country then. We talk about nuclear weapons like everyone has them...well a lot do...but if one was detonated you would be totally speechless at the destruction and aftermath of it. For Americans, if one was detonated on their soil, it would be their first "taste" of what the world has gone through, and they would respond because they have the (military) power to do so. Look at how we responded to a terrorist attack...we would start to invade (or begin heavy negoitations) every country that the government considers a threat. The American people would support the government fully on such miltary movements, nuclear weapons are something that we talk too lightly about.
  22. postoak Registered Senior Member

    The inspectors pulled out because the U.S. was going to resume bombing of Iraq. Why? -- because Saddam was so hindering the inspectors that they weren't able to do their work.

    So, the idea is that we wait until someone detonates a nuclear bomb in the U.S. and then nuke a bunch of Muslim cities? Wouldn't it be better to force Saddam to come clean before all of that happens?

    I ask again. If Saddam has nothing to hide then why won't he allow inspectors in and give them unhindered access?
  23. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    The only answer to that question could be what Stryderunknown was saying...
    He just wants to mess with the US, but why would he risk his life, his money, his oil, his control over a country...just to mess with a country that doesn't have a sense of humor when it comes to "weapons of mass destruction"?

Share This Page