America: The Dictator Of The World

[BKJ1216]

I have been thinking last night bout how america is both a democracy and a dictatorship. It seems to me that any country that dosen't run itself like the US wants it to, get's screwed over by the US. We don't mind our own buisness. It's like whats going on over in Iraq right now. We don't like the way Saddam is running his country, so we're gonna go put our nose in his buisness and turn it into yet another country forced into a new type of goverment by the US. I mean some countries we don't start war with, but we'll cut off their foreign aid until they agree to do things our way. Are we really the free world or our we the just the dictatorship of the world.

[Kensai]

Thats a question I always ask myself.

 

Sometimes I LOVE the USA.

 

Sometimes I HATE the USA.

 

Europe is a joke anyway. Sometimes, I think isolationism is a good idea. But thats not how the world will evolve.

 

Its a question of what is right and wrong. Personally I think we should stick our noses in everyones business sometimes, Mugabe, Lybia, China, Russia....etc the list goes on. But when does it stop and even the Might of the USA armed forces cant stop all of them.

 

Democracy has always been the way to make real gains, but always with the "credable" threat of force, if we let this little league dictor get away with it, then the real players like N.Korea and Iran will see the West as weak. So perhaps it is better to do this now, not just to get rid of Saddam, but as a message to the rest of the world, to get them back around the table and make some REAL disussions.

[superleeds]

Thats a question I always ask myself.

 

Sometimes I LOVE the USA.

 

Sometimes I HATE the USA.

 

Europe is a joke anyway. Sometimes, I think isolationism is a good idea. But thats not how the world will evolve.

 

Its a question of what is right and wrong. Personally I think we should stick our noses in everyones business sometimes, Mugabe, Lybia, China, Russia....etc the list goes on. But when does it stop and even the Might of the USA armed forces cant stop all of them.

 

Democracy has always been the way to make real gains, but always with the "credable" threat of force, if we let this little league dictor get away with it, then the real players like N.Korea and Iran will see the West as weak. So perhaps it is better to do this now, not just to get rid of Saddam, but as a message to the rest of the world, to get them back around the table and make some REAL disussions.

 

The problem is not about the US invading Iraq for personal gain, and the problem is not about democracy. The real problem is that the US government and their pet dogs from no 10 Downing Street has made the UN redundant. As a result, 50 years of diplomatic craftmanship has gone to waste. Worldwide political stability is just a pipe dream. Unless the Hawks decide to mold any other country they dont approve of in their image. I fear that we will not only see bombs exploding in Bagdad. The war can soon enough be closer than any of us had expected.

[KickChick]

Seems America and our loyal allies are the only ones with the balls to do let democracy win.

 

The war could have bee thwarted if Saddam had agreed to comply first with unveilling the truth whether or not he had weapons of mass detruction ... to account for his (Saddam's) unaccounted 8,500 liters of anthrax. If used against people, a worldwide catastrophe would ensue not only for America!

 

It's one thing for countries to condemn Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, mass murder and rape in Kuwait, and funding of suicide bombing expeditions, it is quite another to prevent those things.... and that is what we are doing.

 

If the nations of the world would unite against evil ... like Saddam, and the insanity of countries like North Korea, deadly situations would be solved and the world would be a better, safer place.

 

Every effort was made by by legal and political means.... however, as we have all seen, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler and, now Saddam Hussein have not complied.

 

So in order to prevent the mass death that took place in Europe and Asia 60 years ago, I support my President, America and our Allies in removing a dangerous killer from power.

[superleeds]

Seems America and our loyal allies are the only ones with the balls to do let democracy win.

 

The war could have bee thwarted if Saddam had agreed to comply first with unveilling the truth whether or not he had weapons of mass detruction ... to account for his (Saddam's) unaccounted 8,500 liters of anthrax. If used against people, a worldwide catastrophe would ensue not only for America!

 

It's one thing for countries to condemn Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, mass murder and rape in Kuwait, and funding of suicide bombing expeditions, it is quite another to prevent those things.... and that is what we are doing.

 

What about napalmbombing in Vietnam? What about the funding of Contras? The help the US gave Pinochet? The funding of Israel's apartheid regime? Arent those things evil?

 

If the nations of the world would unite against evil ... like Saddam, and the insanity of countries like North Korea, deadly situations would be solved and the world would be a better, safer place.

 

Every effort was made by by legal and political means.... however, as we have all seen, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler and, now Saddam Hussein have not complied.

 

So in order to prevent the mass death that took place in Europe and Asia 60 years ago, I support my President, America and our Allies in removing a dangerous killer from power.

Uniting against "evil" is what the UN is about. With the U.S as a "loose cannon" who gets to decide who is evil and who's not? In the Middle East Ariel Sharon is considered an evil man. Shouldn't the opinion of the people in the Middle East be just as important as the general opinion in the USA? Whats next? Cuba? Venezuela? Where should we draw the line? Should the whole world, live at the US president's whim? U talk about democracy. its not democracy when the biggest bullie in the schoolyard decides that hes not going to listen to anyone else, and do what he sees fit.

[KickChick]

What about napalmbombing in Vietnam? What about the funding of Contras? The help the US gave Pinochet? The funding of Israel's apartheid regime? Arent those things evil?

 

Uniting against "evil" is what the UN is about. With the U.S as a "loose cannon" who gets to decide who is evil and who's not?

 

PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I did not post THAT!!!

 

Edit** Very sneaky superleeds..... if you are going to quote, use the poster's direct quote! Don't modify it to suit your opinion!!

 

Who decides??? The U.N. ..... France, Germany, China and Russia opposed removing Saddam Hussein by force because all of those countries are doing profitable business with Saddam and all of them would like to see US power diminished.

Edited March 20, 2003 by KickChick

[SBN Doug]

Who decides??? The U.N. ..... France, Germany, China and Russia opposed removing Saddam Hussein by force because all of those countries are doing profitable business with Saddam and all of them would like to see US power diminished.

 

If you hadn't brought it up, I would have. Some have said we're in it for the oil. What about the "others" that don't want to be in it because they're already getting the oil, selling the weapons, selling the technology.

 

As for isolationism, what would the world be like right now had the United States kept to ourselves in WWII? Also, how about listening to some Iraqis that live in free countries now. Listen to their stories of the daily atrocities being committed by Sadam and his sons.

 

On a final note, it's interesting that we've already seen a number of weapons thrown at us that the Iraqi government claimed not to have, and that were banned from their possession by the UN 12 years ago. I found it very amusing to hear the Iraqi claims today that those missiles couldn't have come from them, because they don't have any of those.

[ZR440]

Seems America and our loyal allies are the only ones with the balls to do let democracy win.

 

The war could have bee thwarted if Saddam had agreed to comply first with unveilling the truth whether or not he had weapons of mass detruction ... to account for his (Saddam's) unaccounted 8,500 liters of anthrax. If used against people, a worldwide catastrophe would ensue not only for America!

 

It's one thing for countries to condemn Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, mass murder and rape in Kuwait, and funding of suicide bombing expeditions, it is quite another to prevent those things.... and that is what we are doing.

 

What about napalmbombing in Vietnam? What about the funding of Contras? The help the US gave Pinochet? The funding of Israel's apartheid regime? Arent those things evil?

 

If the nations of the world would unite against evil ... like Saddam, and the insanity of countries like North Korea, deadly situations would be solved and the world would be a better, safer place.

 

Every effort was made by by legal and political means.... however, as we have all seen, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler and, now Saddam Hussein have not complied.

 

So in order to prevent the mass death that took place in Europe and Asia 60 years ago, I support my President, America and our Allies in removing a dangerous killer from power.

Uniting against "evil" is what the UN is about. With the U.S as a "loose cannon" who gets to decide who is evil and who's not? In the Middle East Ariel Sharon is considered an evil man. Shouldn't the opinion of the people in the Middle East be just as important as the general opinion in the USA? Whats next? Cuba? Venezuela? Where should we draw the line? Should the whole world, live at the US president's whim? U talk about democracy. its not democracy when the biggest bullie in the schoolyard decides that hes not going to listen to anyone else, and do what he sees fit.

 

If I remember correctly, the UN didn't do a damn thing when the Bosnia conflict was happening. It was NATO that acted. And what's this about Cuba and Venezuala? Very poor examples. Maybe you should try North Korea.

 

If it turns out that Iraq becomes a prosperous democratic country years from now everyone can thank us and our real friends. If it doesn't, it probably won't be any worse off.

[jmy77]

We don't like the way Saddam is running his country, so we're gonna go put our nose in his buisness and turn it into yet another country forced into a new type of goverment by the US.

 

This is war about Saddam not complying with the acccords set by the UN after the gulf war, though I am not blind to the many other implications.

 

In 1998/9 Saddam did not allow UN inspectors into Iraq and nothing was done.

 

The UN passed legislation against Iraq and does not enforce it, America sees this and gets a president willing to enforce it - He goes before the UN and they still won't enforce their own rules.

 

France leads the way againts the US. (and has interest in Iraq as is)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20SAFI.html?th

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/iraq013.htm

[jmy77]

Titled: Why not Kill Dictators with Kindness?

 

Mar. 10, 2003

 

Why Not Kill Dictators with Kindness?

 

BY JOE KLEIN

 

A year ago in Tehran, I noticed a defiantly goofy graffito inscribed on the wall of the old U.S. embassy building, the compound where the American hostages were held in 1979: ON THE DAY THE U.S. WILL PRAISE US, WE WILL MOURN. This was an official slogan — in Iran, as in America, graffiti are the work of miscreants, but in Iran the miscreants run the country — and it was an unintentionally revealing one: the mullahs are terrified of better relations with the U.S. Without the Great Satan, they have no excuse for, and no way to divert attention from, the dreadful brutality of their rule. A wicked thought occurred to me at the time, and recurred last week, as the Bush Administration continued its foolish refusal to meet with the North Koreans: Why not do the one thing that would most discomfort, and perhaps even destabilize, the precarious regimes of the Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il and — for that matter — Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi? Why not just say, "We hereby grant you diplomatic recognition, whether you like it or not. We're naming an ambassador. We're lifting the embargo. We're going to let our companies sell you all sorts of cool American things like Big Macs and Hummers. This doesn't mean we approve of the way you run your country, but it's silly for us to deny that you're in charge...for now"?

 

Diplomacy is rarely so rash. And yet, "It would certainly catch the mullahs by surprise," says Azar Nafisi, an Iranian dissident who is a fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "It would drive them crazy," she adds, laughing, "the thought of having an American embassy in Tehran again, with lines of people around the block, trying to get green cards. There is a theory that American cultural and economic power is so insidiously attractive that opening up to the U.S. would be the death of these regimes. I've heard it called the Fatal Hug."

 

The arguments against Fatal Huggery are obvious. Why encourage and legitimize evildoers? Why allow Kim Jong Il — the Michael Jackson of world leaders — to succeed with nuclear blackmail? Why reward the Iranians for their support of Hizballah? Fair points, all. But there is a problem: the current American policy of nonrecognition isn't working, and it may well be counterproductive. "What's the hardest job for a tin-pot dictator in the information age?" asks Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Keeping his people isolated from the world. Why should we be making life easier for Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il?"

 

The U.S. is the only major country that indulges in diplomatic ostracism (although most Arab states don't recognize Israel). This policy was invented, appropriately enough, by the arch-idealist Woodrow Wilson, who said that diplomatic recognition should depend on the "existence of a just government...resting upon the consent of the governed." Wilson refused to recognize the Soviet Union in 1917. That ban was lifted in 1933, but Wilson's policy was resurrected in 1949 when the communists conquered China. America's nonrecognition of China, which lasted nearly 30 years, was an unmitigated disaster. "If we had not ostracized the Chinese, we might have avoided the war in Vietnam," says a prominent Republican foreign policy expert, referring to the American misreading of China's control over the Vietnamese communists (China and Vietnam proved to be mortal enemies). "But when has it ever helped to refuse to talk? Why voluntarily reduce your influence over an adversary?"

 

The China policy was just the start. By the time Jimmy Carter became President, the U.S. refused to recognize 17 countries. Conservatives took a hard line in most cases; liberals acquiesced, for fear of being called softies. The hard-liners were reinforced by ethnic lobbyists for China, Cuba and Israel, who worked to pass economic embargoes that can't be undone without further legislative action. In the past two decades, human-rights groups have also joined the coalition of the unwilling-to-recognize. In most cases, the motivation is honorable — all of these regimes are terrible — but the overall pattern is hypocritical: Why shun Iran and yet recognize Saudi Arabia, which also funds terrorism and denies human rights? Why recognize Pakistan, which produces nuclear weapons and helped create the Taliban, and not recognize Libya, which has been trying to cultivate our approval for almost a decade? Does anyone actually believe we would be in worse shape now on the Korean peninsula if we were talking to the North Koreans?

 

Talking to evildoers is the essence of realpolitik, and realpolitik seems in bad odor these days. Last week George W. Bush announced himself as the most exuberantly idealistic foreign policy President since Woodrow Wilson. Bush's vision of a sudden flowering of post-Saddam Middle Eastern democracy has no historical precedent. If issued from the mouth of, say, Ted Kennedy, it would have been denounced by conservatives as fantasy. Is Fatal Hug diplomacy any more improbable than what the President has already proposed?