Here's a fairly simple question to debate:

How are we different from the countries we feel are a danger to us and the world?

We continue to develop and maintain WMD of all types. We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents with our WMDs. We have invaded countries that have not attacked us and posed no real threat to us directly (Iraq, Vietnam). We continue to threaten sovereign nations that don't embrace our culture (freedom, democracy, etc).

Why would a group of nations be wrong to create their own coalitions and attempt to destroy us? If they are afraid we might destroy their country without direct provocation, why would they not pre-emptively destroy us to protect themselves?

Edited to add:
If you think we're different because the American government treats it's people better, be sure to visit Amnesty International to see how the world perceives us.

We're different because, throwing all political correctness aside, might makes right. We are strong enough, partially due to our massive stock of WMD's, to take actions that prevent other countries from obtaining them. Once a country gets powerful enough they are better able to resist the demands of other countries. North Korea is in a much stronger position to resist our demands than Iraq was.

We are no different than other countries in that we have something to lose if attacked by WMD's. Sadly, MAD does not provide protection against terrorists. I don't think their has ever been a country that obeyed the Geneva Convention when they thought it was not in their national interest to do so. We are no different there either. Only losers have to worry about war crimes trials.

As I am sure you are aware the US has never used WMD except in war (not started by us) and then reluctantly, and I would say we did not kill "innocents". We can argue that we have done more good in the world by far than all other nations combined. We know there are nations with WMD are we are justly concerned with the countries that could pose a threat to us, or our allies, such as N. Korea or others like Syria that has long been a sponsor of world terrorism.


The reasons for our concerns are very valid. As a supporter of Israel we are the prime target for most of the worlds major terrorist organizations. We need to be wary and watchful or the next attack will kill 10s of thousands of us.


Nations can do all they like to oppose us and we can choose to not trade with them, or aid them in any way. I have no problem with this. Do You Datonrocker?

How concerned should we be concerning world opinion? I'd rather not run foreign policy via a popularity contest.
I find it interesting that there are people who praise and deify the French and others for 'standing up to us', my aren't they brave.....taking a stand for what they believe in regardless of what the U.S. thinks.
Yet when I've made a similar statement in other threads that we took a stand regardless of what other nations may have thought be cause we thought we were right....comparisons to Hitler's Germany were made.

Amnesty International doesn't care for us because we execute murderers...boo-hoo.

While I don't advocate the 'supposed' Neo-Con fascist take over of the world, it would be silly to overnite dismantle our nuclear arsenal. Just because the Soviet Union is defunct, Russia and China are not. Like it or not, we don't live in a socialist utopia, nor will we probably ever. So in the absence of that, might does indeed make right.
If other nations don't care for us, then by all means let them impose sanctions or boycott us.

I agree strongly with you Dontreadonme. We now hear calls for Bush to take responsibility for any and all “security lapses” etc. never mind that previous administrations (esp. the Clinton Admin) gutted the CIA field agents to the point that we literally had not a single person in Iraq able to give the US accurate inside information on WMD or anything else.

And Amnesty Int. has always been a left wing group that hates us and always will. I am still waiting for their plan detailing how the world should have stopped the killing in Iraq without enforcing UN resolutions or going in. Now that we have learned, what we suspected, that France was in Saddam’s pocket it is clear that the only way Iraq was ever going to be held accountable for anything was if the US did it without UN official support.

Hmm... let's see.... where did this posting go wrong?

The CIA answers to Congress as well about their activities. The House has been in control of Republicans since 1994; the Senate has gone back and forth and is now in the hands of Republicans for 3 years and yet... and yet... THEY didn't call for any changes at the CIA either. But it's easier to blame Clinton.

Why should the "world" have stopped whatever killing is going on in Iraq? Who picked the USA to be "the enforcer" and why did we just stop with Iraq when we've been detailing human rights violations in China, Cuba, Congo, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc.?

Although you continue to suspect that France was in Saddam's pocket, the reports I've seen have been VERY incoclusive and based on written documentation from inside Iraq with no confirmation from any other source. And the report wasn't even about France, but certain French companies. Similar to the charges of Haliburton and Cheney, right?

Again, why do WE have to be "the enforcer" and why did we stop at Iraq? Could it be that the policy of "pre-emption" is faulty without 100% accurate intelligence, which is only theoretically possible?

Well my point amf is that it is not fair to blame Bush for lapses at the CIA. Congress did not vote for the requested funds for field agents over the past 12 years. I don’t blame Democrats for all of that but I surely don’t blame Bush because even if he had pushed through a huge increase in CIA field agents the day he came to office it would have done nothing. It takes years to get in place and gather relevant data.


I never said the world should stop anything. I agree with Dontreadonme that the folks at Amnesty Int. are hypocrites for criticizing the US for relieving the horrible ongoing human rights crisis in Iraq while they have apparently no plan to do a thing.

Our reason for moving against Iraq was the violation of all UN Resolutions including 1441. We did the heavy lifting in Gulf War I and I feel we had the right to expect the UN to enforce the Resolutions. Don’t you? Was it OK that the UN left in 1998 with all the issues unresolved and no action to bring anything to a conclusion? Should we have just walked away and waited for Iraq to get their WMD programs, and they still had a lot of them, running and producing again?

Obviously France thought we should.

Except of course, all the evidence so far shows that Hussein had no WMD productions going by that point, and few if any stockpiles of the weapos themselves. Those inspectors were not siting on their butts between 1991 and 1998, they were dismantling the WMD and missile production capacity of Hussein and destroying his stockpiles.

As of yet (and I admit it is only as of yet) NO evidence exists that any such weapons or programs existed after 1998.

As for the Horrible human rights crises, firstly so far (and again I admit it is only so far) the human rights siuation in Iraq has deteriorated since the US invasion, though hopefully this will change, and secondly how much money in aid did the US give to Saudi Arabia this year? Check out their human rights record, not to mention recod for supporting terrorists...