Maybe not the best title lol. Firstly, I don't mean its people, I mean its government and foreign policy (when I say America in this post I will mean its government and policies). I want you to tell me why they arn't as selfish as I think and correct me about anything if I'm wrong please :-#

 

 

 

Right, I've been looking at America foreign policy really since Iraq, I was quite young at the time(13) but I could still see that Iraq wasn't right, even then. Since then my feelings towards America has been of growing discust. It seems to me that America has, since the end of WW2, has taken it upon itself to police the world, they arguew that they are bringing democracy and peace to the world, I argue that they are fighting against democracy and peace.

 

 

 

From my limited understanding the war in Vietnam seemed to have been based on the idea that communism is evil, is it really anybodies right to say how a country runs itself? Now from what I can understand JFK said 2 days before he was shot that he wanted to pull out of Vietnam and the day before he was shot he pulled out 500(can't remember excactly) troops from Nam, he was then shot by a man that has ties with the CIA, who was then shot by a member of the CIA while being held for questioning (suspicious). I would also like to question the assassination of Lenon, and to point out that a member of the CIA also attempted to assasinate Bob Marley. Is America really home of the free? Are the government scared of their own people realising how ridiculous their foreign policies are? Is the war against drugs (pretty much weed) started mainly from the fact that so many protestors of Vietnam smoked weed?

 

 

 

Recently I cannot see how the world is standing for George Bush bullying and getting his own way on practially every issue. Walking out on the Kyoto treaty was probally one of the most insanely selfish, arrogant and stupid thing that any leader of a country, especially the one that has contributed the most towards carbon emmissions, could do. Trying to change the endangered species act is also another ridiculously selfish act by the Bush.

 

 

 

Another major thing is his incrimination of other countries for having nuclear weapons, where America and Israel and many other countries have pleanty. How can you stop a country (Iran) from devloping nuclear reactors that are probally going to use them to make electricity when you have nuclear warheads and are planning on making more? How can you then place this country in your 'Axis of Evil' when Iran has been involved in very little wars and done very little wrong to anyone and America has killed millions in the last 40 years.

 

 

 

I would like to point out a few UN proposals that America has vetoed over the last 40 years, please tell me where the reasoning comes from..

 

 

 

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids

 

1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories

 

1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries

 

1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.

 

1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.

 

1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement

 

1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.

 

1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights

 

1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.

 

1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law -pah!

 

1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

 

1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.

 

1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.

 

1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.

 

1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.

 

2001 To set up the International Criminal Court

 

 

 

 

I love this one :

 

 

 

1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

 

 

 

America seems to call anybody fighting against them terrorists, when it's clearly not the case.. I love how America vetoed this and is now the leading cpountry int he war against 'terror' (on America) :wall:

 

 

 

Now is it just me or is this blatently a majorly selfish act? Were these proposals not obviously right and moral? Theres many more US vetos, take a look at them, they're quite condemning (in my point of view).

 

 

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

 

 

 

I don't know if anybody heard about the Tommy Chong affair? Basically he sold his name to a Canadian country that sold weed parafinalia(sp): seeds, bongs, grinders. In 2 of the States in America it is ilegal to buy these things. The company shipped to these states, obviously unaware of the laws there. America retaliated, not by charging the offending buyers, but by raiding his house. A FULL SCALE raid, news crews, helicopters, for something that is not ilegal in Canada, had nothing to do with him and there was nothing wrong with! Please click the link below to read the full story

 

 

 

http://www.nndb.com/people/621/000022555/

 

 

 

Now is it just me or is this not the actions of a free pro democratic country, but the actions of a country fighting a pointless war against cannabis and trying to make a show out of it?

 

 

 

Cannabis, for some reason America hates it, Ronald Raegan actually willingly conducted a misleading experiment on animals to be able to say 'cannabis gives you brain damage'. Now I'm sorry, but why should America have any say in weeds legality in other countries? They have in fact threatened Canada with building a wall and stopping all trading if the legalised weed. I wonder why that is? Why would anybody be willing to do that? Is it to protect its people? To protect their mental health? or is it to stop people from seeing the misleading, lying ways of the US government. There are many cases of America trying to imprison Canadians for selling, probally unknowingly, weed parafinalia to the US when Canada has never tried to do anything, if someone buys a gun from America they don't charge the America they'd charge the Canadian.

 

 

 

Where does America get off telling us they're pro freedom and pro democracy when every one of their recent actions has been working against it. How is this right?

 

 

 

They say that they approve free markets, pah, they approve free markets on their terms. The US government has fined companies $26million to stop American companies boycotting Israeli companies, Texas automobile parts did just that, to start of with they sent a fax 'rein in [its] military and stop [its] oppression of the Palestinian people." The letter concluded, "Your country has lost the respect of the civilized world', later (after some hastle I would've thought) they released this "I deeply regret my letter written in anger to Mr. Avi Udiz. I respect the right of Israel and its citizens to defend themselves. I regret any inconvenience or insult that was caused by my letter".

 

 

 

I will add more soon, please prove me wrong on my opinions but as I am seeing it now I would place America in the axis of evil and fully sympathise with anti American feelings from the middle east.

 

 

 

Thanklyou for taking the time for reading this ! :)

Without commenting on the freedom, that's just a short list of the propositions the US (as a permanent member) has veto'ed in the United Nations. It's ridiculous how they will veto literally everything that puts Israel in bad light, even if they've committed blatant human right abuses or genocide.

Okay, I have an idea.

 

 

 

Let's all just hate Sri Lanka instead. Or Brunei. Rich bastards.

Without commenting on the freedom, that's just a short list of the propositions the US (as a permanent member) has veto'ed in the United Nations. It's ridiculous how they will veto literally everything that puts Israel in bad light, even if they've committed blatant human right abuses or genocide.

 

 

 

It really doesn't makes sense does it, I'm sorry if this topics a little unclear, theres actually a link to the full list of US vetoes if you're at all interested.

 

 

 

I really don't understand why the US has such an obligation to defend ISrael even when, like you said, it blatently violated human rights or took unnessacary or ilegal actions.

Reb's on the right track, but I want to hate Canada instead. Damn mooses. Meeses? Mice? We'll worry about plurals later.

 

 

 

Anyway, I agree. From what we learn in History we had not only a good government, but a great one. Then a few years after WWII... wtf.

Reb's on the right track, but I want to hate Canada instead. Damn mooses. Meeses? Mice? We'll worry about plurals later.

 

 

 

Anyway, I agree. From what we learn in History we had not only a good government, but a great one. Then a few years after WWII... wtf.

 

 

 

[bleep]ing A' man, it's MOOSE. At least I think it is, never heard anyone around here say meeses.

 

 

 

And if you hate Canada, well you're screwed. Where else will Americans get their natural maple syrup (I've tried that crap that you guys have...ewww) and massive amounts of wheat :lol:

Okay, I have an idea.

 

 

 

Let's all just hate Sri Lanka instead. Or Brunei. Rich bastards.

 

Seriously. Maybe we should bring up the World War I card. Or World War II. I dunno. I also wish I could find a tiny list of the vetoes that puts one country in a bad light.

 

 

 

Right, I've been looking at America foreign policy really since Iraq, I was quite young at the time(13) but I could still see that Iraq wasn't right, even then. Since then my feelings towards America has been of growing discust. It seems to me that America has, since the end of WW2,

 

You contradicted yourself. American foreign policy changes ever 8 years, maximum, and you say you've been looking at it for under 6 years, but later in your post bring up situations that have happened decades ago. That's a good thing and a bad thing about our government - it never stays exactly the same. I guess you could argue its similar, but the similarity argument is ridiculous in general.

 

 

 

You aren't even understanding these so-called "anti-American" feelings in the Middle East. Kuwait loves us. Middle Eastern? Yes. Israel? Yes. Saudi Arabia? Yes. Iraq? Yes.

 

Speaking general populations and political "love", by the way. No way in hell does anybody know the personal thoughts of people. I, for one, don't even care about any other nation, at least not particularly. This is the one I live in, this is the one that matters to me. I got more important stuff to do than blame Britain for the world's problems.

 

 

 

Maybe I'll just build as arrogant an argument as I can later. That's the only one that recieves credit in these "debates".

Yeah, I really care little even about America's problems. I do care about us more than just the entire world.

Get over it.

Reminds me of the story where there's this Canadian guy that got imprisoned in the U.S. because he was unknowingly crossing the border with marijuana. Apparently some guys put it inside the trailer walls of his truck while he wasn't there. Imprisonned 23 december 08. His wife has to pay millions (I don't remember how much exactly) to get him out of there, and since she doesn't have that money, she's pleading to Canadian gov for help, but as slow as the Canadian gov goes, the guy's going to be there for years.

Although he's gone very soon, George Bush was the biggest terrorist of the war on terror, bringing terror and fear to the people of Iraq while forcing democracy upon them.

 

 

 

A relatively famous quote I've heard before

 

War is the terrorism of the powerful, terrorism is the war of the weak

 

 

 

What it's supposed to mean is, When a country launches an invasion upon another and kills civilians in the process, it's an act of "war", yet when a group of militants kill the opposing attackers it is branded "terrorism".

 

 

 

I'll agree with you completely when you say anyone who doesn't agree with American policy and is willing to be violent about is branded a "terrorist". Read the story of Mozzam Begg called "Enemy Combatant", a story of a man who attended a guerrilla training camp as a teen, funded one indirectly through an accident years later and then was jailed in various American "prison" camps such as Guantanamo bay, without trial for 4 years.

 

 

 

The American policy based around Guantanamo bay seems to be that of internment, which basically defys many basic human rights to the very core.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, the way the American foreign policy acts is that of a coward and a bully quite often.

Maybe home of the free but not home of the brave i got some real [kitties] at my school

As far as I'm concerned, the way the American foreign policy acts is that of a coward and a bully quite often.

 

How, though? For half this nation's life we've been isolationist - quite often sounds like a majority to me, you know. Until we finally gave in to help with World War I we stuck to ourselves, although you could say that the Spanish-American War began America's rise as being more involved.

 

 

 

I think this whole debate is stupid, though. It's all "your country is stupid" versus "I think yours is". And from what I've seen, the population of Americans on this board is generally young, while Europeans are generally older. You can't really expect a good "debate" from that, eh?

 

 

 

Although he's gone very soon, George Bush was the biggest terrorist of the war on terror, bringing terror and fear to the people of Iraq while forcing democracy upon them.

 

How? The President doesn't approve every part of all military operations. He doesn't aim bombs that miss, or gather intelligence that's incorrect. How was he a terrorist? I agree it could have been handled better, but our invasion ended a genocide. I can't see why Iraqis would prefer a dictatorship to a democracy, but I suppose it had been forced on them.

 

 

 

Whatever. I hold up my second paragraph.

First off, I would like to point out there is a difference between going into a war with bad intention and screwing up so badly the result turns out bad.

 

 

 

The conspiracy theory about JFK really doesnt belong in a debate on the morality of the US because even if there was a conspiracy the rationale behind it is impossible to be certain of. There is more then one reason you may want the president dead afterall

 

 

 

We went into Vietnam to prevent North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam because South Vietnam did not want to be communist. In fairness, I am not too familiar with the Vietnam situation but we were trying to protect a country from being conqured not attack them for being communist, though in many ways it was a war to prevent communism from being spread.

 

 

 

On the UN propositions, I dont have time to research them all and I agree there are probably a few mistakes in there; however, one must have context if they are trying to prove such a strong statement. Unless you know the reason the US government has given for each vetoe, and are familiar with what the bill would have fully done and not just a one line summary, you cant judge the intentions of the US. Again, Im not saying the US was right on all or any of those bills just that context is important in history.

 

 

 

Finally, I dont intend to start a flame war over the morality of the US, I am not nearly familiar enough with post WW2 history to be able to properly defend my points. Everone trying to condemn the US should be careful though, and realize sometimes things that start with good intentions turn out making you look very bad. Like how creating a jewish state after the holocaust seemed like a good idea, but you can see how that has/is blowing up and causing a lot of trouble for everyone.

Holy [cabbage]! And yet, here we are... still alive.

As far as I'm concerned, the way the American foreign policy acts is that of a coward and a bully quite often.

 

How, though? For half this nation's life we've been isolationist - quite often sounds like a majority to me, you know. Until we finally gave in to help with World War I we stuck to ourselves, although you could say that the Spanish-American War began America's rise as being more involved.

 

 

 

I think this whole debate is stupid, though. It's all "your country is stupid" versus "I think yours is". And from what I've seen, the population of Americans on this board is generally young, while Europeans are generally older. You can't really expect a good "debate" from that, eh?

 

 

 

An example would be American diplomats basically bullying Iran into disarming any nuclear associated projects they had, while also trying to get the UN to sanction them. I don't see why America should be allowed possess it's own Nuclear weapons while it wont allow other countries.

 

 

 

You might have been isolationist for quite a while, but for more than half a century you've been the most involved country in Modern warfare and for the last quarter of a century you've seemed to adopt the attitude that you police the world.

 

 

 

Although he's gone very soon, George Bush was the biggest terrorist of the war on terror, bringing terror and fear to the people of Iraq while forcing democracy upon them.

 

How? The President doesn't approve every part of all military operations. He doesn't aim bombs that miss, or gather intelligence that's incorrect. How was he a terrorist? I agree it could have been handled better, but our invasion ended a genocide. I can't see why Iraqis would prefer a dictatorship to a democracy, but I suppose it had been forced on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ended a genocide? Not really, there's still the ongoing sectarian war with Shiites and Sunnis trying to wipe each other off through shootings, kidnappings and suicide bombings. You stopped Saddam killing people yet gave way to those who wanted to kill themselves. George Bush pushed forward the idea of Iraq repeatedly, he could of shown fierce opposition to it but instead showed full support and when he was denied permission by the UN he still went ahead with it, it was his sole decision and he still went ahead with it.

 

 

 

WW2, the basic footsoliders weren't done for war crimes, people with power were. Even if George Bush never shot a rifle at an Iraqi, the blood is still on his hands to a certain degree.

Although he's gone very soon, George Bush was the biggest terrorist of the war on terror, bringing terror and fear to the people of Iraq while forcing democracy upon them.

You know, George is going to have a better light shed on him in the upcoming years. You know why? Because he got results. And you don't have to win the popularity contest to get them.

 

 

 

I'll agree with you completely when you say anyone who doesn't agree with American policy and is willing to be violent about is branded a "terrorist". Read the story of Mozzam Begg called "Enemy Combatant", a story of a man who attended a guerrilla training camp as a teen, funded one indirectly through an accident years later and then was jailed in various American "prison" camps such as Guantanamo bay, without trial for 4 years.

 

We have an almost never endless appeal system. It's what makes our trials great, to give possibility to those either jailed wrongly and even correctly. However, the appeal system is it's own weakness; we can't go through it all to quickly. But as such is practically the main point of democracy, it's designed to be inefficient. Furthermore, you're not going to be branded a terrorist if you don't agree with our policies. It's only those who take these policies to such extreme that they feel to make a statement through terror, thus the word "terrorist."

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, the way the American foreign policy acts is that of a coward and a bully quite often.

No, we've just been so interlinked, if only by making ourselves that way, with the foreign world. Because of this, we feel that others should look towards our standards of human rights and justice, when in fact other forms work just as well.

 

 

 

Ended a genocide? Not really, there's still the ongoing sectarian war with Shiites and Sunnis trying to wipe each other off through shootings, kidnappings and suicide bombings. You stopped Saddam killing people yet gave way to those who wanted to kill themselves. George Bush pushed forward the idea of Iraq repeatedly, he could of shown fierce opposition to it but instead showed full support and when he was denied permission by the UN he still went ahead with it, it was his sole decision and he still went ahead with it.

It doesn't matter. That's just media propaganda. During the war and pretty much all of his time in office, he pretty much acts as a spokesperson; someone we can point the finger at. Since the "war" in Iraq technically isn't a war, he hasn't been appointed those powers. Who you should really be pointing the finger at is Congress, if anyone.

I love the U.S. government, it just has to learn that one country alone just isn't capable of policing the world. Until we form a global alliance, (and that will happen eventually but it's a loooooooong way off), there will always be wars and conflicts.

 

 

 

An American's message to the U.S. government: You have good intentions, but get your head out of the clouds and work with someone.

 

An American's message to the U.S. government: GTFO the rest of the world and fix up home before going out.

 

Fixed.

An example would be American diplomats basically bullying Iran into disarming any nuclear associated projects they had, while also trying to get the UN to sanction them. I don't see why America should be allowed possess it's own Nuclear weapons while it wont allow other countries.

 

 

 

You might have been isolationist for quite a while, but for more than half a century you've been the most involved country in Modern warfare and for the last quarter of a century you've seemed to adopt the attitude that you police the world.

 

Well, considering the United States is the only one who ever does anything...

 

An American's message to the U.S. government: GTFO the rest of the world and fix up home before going out.

 

Fixed.

What's wrong?

 

An American's message to the U.S. government: GTFO the rest of the world and fix up home before going out.

 

Fixed.

 

 

 

*thwaps nick on the head*

 

 

 

No.

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

 

 

 

And that's why we picked Obama over Mccain. Mccain just wants to bomb everything that's not us.

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

 

 

 

And that's why we picked Obama over Mccain. Mccain just wants to bomb everything that's not us.

 

Hmm true, but I was talking more about during Bush's term.