People in school was using words likE " americas a bully " "america will fight anything even a rat" please tell me what you think about this subject i look forward to your comments

the onley bully is one who picks on others for its own self-fulfillment. America is no such bully. this country picks its battles. others get into fights with the us when they deserve it . even a rat can be very dangerousalthuogh very decepting a rat can be carrying the world's worst plague that you could imagine. and therefore this rat could be just as powerful as Uncle Sam and his M-16.

Welcome to the board! i think that america does not intervien enough

I think that there are some ideas that ought to be pushed onto other countries. America is doing something right with its freedom of speech and human rights, and bullying other countries into at least considering these ideas, seems alright to me.

But America is inconsistent. It's involvement in other countries is not really based on this ideal, is it?

jjirout

I think it is. We have been pushing our style of government and ideals for decades.

Then what is it based on? Commercialism? Oil? Those are also based on capitalism.

When you look around, the US is quite tolerant and liberal when it comes to other forms of government and economics. We are allies with kingdoms with feudal economies, a form of government and a form of economics the US rebelled against in the 18th Century. The US fought Desert Storm to protect one of these kingdoms.

Another example is China. The US nudges China to be more liberal, but this is done through trade agreements.

The US does promote democracy and capitalism as the best forms of government and economics. I suppose it is true that if the US does something for a nation, strings are attached. This is diplomacy, not bullying.

The current fixation on Iraq does strike me as almost irrational. I'm waiting for the proof of WMDs before agreeing that war is necessary. In this instance, it does strike me that bullying is going on, both internationally and domestically. This in turn makes me doubt we have the best leadership for foreign affairs at this time. But then, the US took a gamble that GWB's staff would keep him from making big mistakes.

Seems to be working.

I think just like the revolutionary war, that we should press our form of governement possibly to cause a revolt in their own countrys ( like we did with the people who owned formal panama)

juber3

I disagree...lets educate them. Democracy isnt always best for a people. Communism works in Cuba.

Read up on current events in some "democratic" nations in Africa.
Who ever gives out the most grain wins...

Heres an interesting quote that is very relevant to this...

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler

Travis

Has anyone heard of the 'Stick and Carrot' theory??.

If not here's a brief explanation.

There are two ways to make a donkey move by either giving it a carrot when it moves or by beating it with a stick.

It may take longer to teach it to expect a carrot when it moves but it will do it willingly.
Beating it with a stick brings quicker results and it will move because of fear.

On the one hand we have choice and reward and on the other we have no choice and pain.

America was for many years the former but is now the latter.
It has the big stick to enable it to get quicker results.
Fear and pain makes enemies.
Choice and reward makes friends.

Regards........Alan

Maybe i'm ignorant, but i dont see it. Who is america using the stick on? Afganistan? Threatening Iraq? Supporting Israel? Hunting Al-Queda in Indonesia? These seem legitimate to me. Something else?

Where does this analogy fit to an event?


Confused ,
Travis

Never say never...



How is voting for lower taxes taking money from the public treasure? You must be referring to welfare here, but this is way too general a statement.



I am aware that this was true for the Roman Empire, but in what other democracies is this true?

jjirout

We are a bully (or atleast we have bully tendencies) do you really think it's just chance that our "leader" just happens to be attacking the same people as his daddy. The Bush's are notorious for being involved in oil...have you ever had your lunch money stolen from you or how about your "cash crop" being taken away...



-Not to knock anyone for posting here but how can you say "let's educate them" and then drop a quote on us. I'm very tired of people using quotes as fact.

Keep in mind that the bushman hasnt attacked iraq yet. So far the bush administration has only threatened. Saddam has allowed inspectors back in and has shown some documents. Looks like progress to me.
Notorious for being involved in oil? I'll say it again, i think this is over WMD paranoia.



I was suggesting to juber3 that democracy doesnt always work with certain cultures and peoples. The quote was a reference to a person i thought would have a more credible opinion here than I. I was not using it as fact! A quote is an opinion and should be taken that way.

Is America(translated as Bush & Co) a bully? I dont think so. Who are we bullying?

sorry for the confusion, I misinterpreted your quote. It's something I've seen done alot. Although he hasn't attacked yet from my vantage point it looks like he will. The UN inspector's really aren't being effective, they've been made to wait at the door. Conceptually we are doing ok, but I think our execution is lacking.

He very well may attack. I think the Bush administration is just running through the legalities right now. Maybe they are either waiting for Saddam to slip up, or for the inspectors to actually find something(unlikely).

With dissent toward a war with Iraq the popular idea right now, i think they are riding all the diplomatic trails. I think they have evidence but are waiting for the right time to show it.
(To not have evidence, and then threaten and attack iraq, would be political suicide.)


I Agree

Back on topic: Who are we bullying around?

Travis

Travis ,

I suppose we are bullying Iraq. There's no doubt we'd win a war with them, so we are not picking on someone our own size.

This is starting to look like one of GWB's biggest mistakes--the push for war on Iraq as part of the war on terror. The disconnect is too great. It looks like a typical smarmy political trick, like adding some law to a bill unrelated to the rider. Now people are thinking, hey, is GWB in so deep that he simply can't back off without looking like a weak leader? Maybe so. Here's a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation, eh? But he has only his own impetuosity to blame. Or maybe it was all a scheme to win the mid-term elections? I don't know. Whatever is going on, the image of the US as international bully seems to be sticking among the nations of the world. Dang, who would have guessed?

It can be taken that way(bullying Iraq). I'm seeing the moral deliema, and i think GW is as well.

As in many places the people are oppressed. They are hurting, they need and want help. An example of this would be the Iraqi dissident groups in London. They were able to escape and wish for Saddams overthrow.

It would be different if the people had a choice. They are not physicaly able to overthrow their tyrant. He has absolute rule and dominion over them. He has a special elite unit call the "Republican Guards". In many ways they are like the Gestapo of Nazi Germany. They are specificaly there for civilian repression and the protection of his many palaces.

Why Iraq? Why not some other Dictatorship?

When we have the chance to free and aid an oppressed people should we not take it? Iraq is is a strategic location, where he would be able to damage many world economys if he so wishes(theres a lot of oil around him). Saddam has shown much animosity towards the west. We know he was building WMD before the gulf war with the intent to use it on Israel or the USA backing Israel. We cut up most of his equipment in the gulf war. Since then though he has had a lot of time to rebuild, if he so chooses.

GW is also thinking ahead. He may not have the power to hurt us now but in the future he will. Left unhobbled he can do whatever he wants, gaining the eguipment to achieve his megalomaniac goals. America may not be at risk now, but why procrastinate. History has shown what will happen when you pass the buck on to another administration. Example: Clinton and his policys, lobbing cruise missles at Osama, ignoring documents suggesting preparation for terrorist attacks, he should have eliminated al-quada after the embassys and the Cole. Thats times past now, but we should learn from our mistakes.



The war on terror isnt just with Al-Queda. Its with all terrorists that have threatened and continue to threaten the USA. Dont misunderstand me here, the "war on terrorism" isnt a blank check to attack whom and what we may. We have to have probable reason and cause(evidence, events, etc). If GW decides to go into Iraq and liberate the people, i'm sure he'll show us a good reason (WMD, War Crimes, Oppression). Smarmy political trick? I dont believe so...the bushman has it right, protect america now, protect america in the future. Thats his job and hes doing it the best way he can with the situation he has got.



If we have to be viewed as "bullys" to protect american intrests then so be it. France looks out for France, Germany for Germany, Russia for Russia, America looks out for America, it it any different between?

We happen to be big though, and should use our power wisely to benefit all. Iraq is a threat to many, and should be delt with accordingly. Sometimes you have to shoulder the wind and do whats right, not whats popular.

Travis

America is certianitly not a "bully" people think that because america will defend itself against attacks on our freedom that we are being an agressor? They say that Bush is trying to bully other countries. US does not want to conquer and take control of these contries like communists. The democrates always try to make the US look like the bad guy. They think that we can send delegates over to Iraq and sit down and have a nice little talk with Sadam Husan to bring peace. They'll have him sighn a document saying " Oh i dont have nuclular weapons". Then when we leave him and his people are going to laugh their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off at how stupid we americans are. You CANNOT TALK PEACE with a man like Sadam. Who uses chemical weapons to oppress his own people! We are not the bullys. Its like Teddy Rosevelt said "Walk soft but carry a big stick"

IMO, America is not a bully...but the current administration is and it reflects on us all.

Danya, I respect your opinion. Allow me to analyze it...

America is not a bully:
Yes this is true, america is not a bully.

The current administration is a bully:
What are you basing this on? Where has our administration shown itself to be a bully?

Do you consider the liberation of an oppressed people in Iraq, "bullying"?

Do you consider the protection of American citizens from a foreign threat, "bullying"?

Where's the "bullying"? Its not Iraq!

If any you still are defending Saddam and his thugs, i suggest a book that might sway you into reason. Saddam's Bombmaker by Dr. Khidhir Hamza. It an autobiography of a scientist who escaped from Saddam's Nuclear Weapons Program in the '90s. I picked it up at the library the other day, it gives insight on what its like to be an Iraqi close to Saddam.

Travis

Thanks for respecting my opinion...that's all I can hope for.

The current administration is a bully:
What are you basing this on? Where has our administration shown itself to be a bully?

It's entire handling of the Iraq situation and the way it's dealt with the UN in general.

Do you consider the liberation of an oppressed people in Iraq, "bullying"

That is not our purpose or what the outcome would be for attacking Iraq...IMO.

Do you consider the protection of American citizens from a foreign threat, "bullying"

I believe this heavy handed and uneven use of force and rhetoric is not protecting us from foreign threats...it's only increasing the likelyhood.

Where's the "bullying"? Its not Iraq!

That's exactly where I see it. However we give N. Korea a free pass to sell their weapons with impunity. Why? Because they are a nuclear power and we are wimps? Maybe not but that's how it looks.

If any you still are defending Saddam and his thugs, i suggest a book that might sway you into reason. Saddam's Bombmaker by Dr. Khidhir Hamza. It an autobiography of a scientist who escaped from Saddam's Nuclear Weapons Program in the '90s. I picked it up at the library the other day, it gives insight on what its like to be an Iraqi close to Saddam.

If you think that's bad you should consider some of the treatment of citizens in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and what Isreal is putting Palestinian and other civilians through...we consider them our 'friends'. Let's be consistent shall we?

I think the bushman is handling Iraq well. He has gone through all the legalities so far, hes having dialouge with the UN, hes taking his time dealing with Saddam in a calculated manner, he is trying to gain support from our allies. These methods seem ok to me. How has he delt with the UN in an improper manner? Could you show an example?



Our purpose is to save American lives in the future, and on the way save a people from a tyrant. Outcome? I believe we would help set up a government of the people, for the people like we are in Afganistan.



Keep in mind he has not used the hand yet. Rhetoric? He has made it plain and simple to me, no rhetoric, just black and white.



I dont believe we have given them a free pass. Not only are they a Nuclear power but they have very close ties to China. I'm guessing they're next on the list. I remember him talking about them in his state of the Union.



It would be nice to be consistent, but we have to be realistic. We have to treat each tyrant differently, because they are each very different.

The situation in Saudi is very different from Iraq. The people are not happy with the royal family(because of their support of the US). They dont have as tight reign on the people, so they have a chance of revolt.
I'm not too well read on Pakistan at this moment but i think they have a congress like body that can counter the president. Also Pakistan is in a dead-lock with India the USA should not mess with if we dont want our noses bloody. The Israeli/Palistinian conflict is another complex issue filled with anger and misunderstanding, here and there. I dont want to get into that.

President Bush is no bully, and Saddam is no choir boy. I can not sit by and watch the leader of the free-world get railed on in the defense of a tyrannical despot.

Travis

From an outsiders point of view it is the inconsistancy of this Administrations intentions that is of great concern.
This inconsistancy has caused a fair portion of World opinion to view it as bordering on the hypocritical.
Even worse, bullying is now needed to enforce it.

It appears from the numerous posts concerning this subject there is a little worm of objection from Americans regarding Bush's arrogant stance and American meddling.

But I suggest that the only way to feel the true extent of the growing anti-American feeling is by living outside 'fortress America'.
It is us out here that feel the effects and have to live with them.
However after saying that, 'fortress America' was touched by the enemies it's meddling created and now the whole World needs to pay.

Bush has dug himself a hole from which he can't climb out.
The American seizure of the Iraqi documents and the edited versions handed out to the selected few just reinforce the standard of hypocracy he needs to stoop to. (is there something in them that implicates American companies?).
The passing on of the Scud missiles manufactured in N.Vietnam (part of the axis of evil) is just one more.
The convenient overlooking of the 70+ U.N. Resolutions (including war crimes) outstanding against Israel.

These are most certainly not the actions of consistancy or for that matter justice.
There appears however to be one thing consistent in all of this.
America does what it does for the good of America.

And America wonders why World mistrust is growing.

Regards.....Alan

I see what you mean sir, but how can we be consistant? How can we please everyone? We cant.

I'm sure you will bring Israel up so i will just address it now.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is rough on the hooves. Bush stands with Sharon condeming sensless attacks on the Israeli women and children. Bush stands with Sharon in the elimination of militant palistinian terrorists. Bush is against terrorism.

"Murderers are not martyrs, targeting civilians is immoral, whatever the excuse" (Rumsfeld)

My thoughts exactly.

Lets step outside of the shroud of America for a moment. Are other nations Consistant? No. Why should the United States be different?

On an individual level, in diplomatics, in war, in peace, in love, you treat different individuals differently according to their needs. It is no different with nations.

"Consistancy" in international politics is unreasonable in the real word. It would be different if every nation behaved and was the same. Then you could be "Consistant".

The assumed "fair portion of the world" that views us as hypocritical should gaze over the watering hole. They'll see that they arent any better.



That little worm is america. Its an americans right to question our leaders. It should be used and is. Bush needs to be questioned, but when he is right we should stand behind him. Arrogant stance? He has conducted himself in a clear and honorable way. Meddling? So far Bush has only attacked places harboring Al-Quaida terrorists.



How can you say this with any authority? Dont you live in Australia? Isnt that a corner of the world the Bush has done nothing in?

I know there is hatred towards America in the world. Are you speaking of the flag burning arab peasants whose leaders wip them into Anti-Western frenzys? Are you speaking of the subtle European disgust of the superior power? Things such as this will allways be.

How is the "whole world paying"? When did Bush declare war on the whole world?



Do you have any proof at all that america edited the documents? All they did was take the origional, copy it and gave it to the big five.



I suppose you mean North Korea. Wouldnt you call seizing the scuds "meddling"? That situation is taken care of i'm sure.



Lets look at who passed those "70+". Biased anti-Israeli arabs and third world dictators that comprise the UN. Jenin and the other "war crimes" were disproven.



Dosent Australia do whats best for Australia?

The job of a government is to serve the people it represents.

Bush is NOT a bully.
-Travis

Mr. Rural Midwest,Dec 11 2002, 06:10 PM
I think the bushman is handling Iraq well. He has gone through all the legalities so far, hes having dialouge with the UN, hes taking his time dealing with Saddam in a calculated manner, he is trying to gain support from our allies. These methods seem ok to me. How has he delt with the UN in an improper manner? Could you show an example.

I disagree because of the way he prepared for war for an entire year, he threatened and cajoled and begged for this war and was rebuffed by every leader he approached. Only then did he go to the UN and when he finally did, he made it clear that whatever the outcome there would be war anyway. We have already stepped up bombing targets in Iraq and then whine and complain because they fire back. We ignore the fact that civilian casualties are reportedly killed by our bombs. That's just an example...Alan already mentioned the way we manipulated the reports and overstepped our authority.

Our purpose is to save American lives in the future, and on the way save a people from a tyrant. Outcome? I believe we would help set up a government of the people, for the people like we are in Afganistan.
I have a hard time believing attacking Iraq really is doing anything to save lives in America. But killing Iraqi civilians over what is only speculation is unacceptable to me. Also, speaking of Afganistan...what about those freezing babies that died because they are not receiving enough aid and more than 3,000 of them are still living in refugee camps at the Pakistan border? Are we doing enough there?

Keep in mind he has not used the hand yet. Rhetoric? He has made it plain and simple to me, no rhetoric, just black and white.
See my answer to part one. You are right. He has made it clear we are going to war no matter what. The rhetoric comes in when he promises to show proof of the WMD's and never does or when he 'thinks' there are ties to Al Quaeda but can't prove it.

I don't believe we have given them a free pass. Not only are they a Nuclear power but they have very close ties to China. I'm guessing they're next on the list. I remember him talking about them in his state of the Union.
You are right...he did mention them. Which was really dumb because it probably is what is prompting them to antagonize him now that our plate is full. Korea is a bona fide threat. Iraq isn't. Did he really expect them to sit and wait their turn for the same treatment we are giving Iraq?
It would be nice to be consistent, but we have to be realistic. We have to treat each tyrant differently, because they are each very different
Which means it would be more prudent not to go around making threats until you are absolutely sure you are going to be backing them up.

President Bush is no bully, and Saddam is no choir boy. I can not sit by and watch the leader of the free-world get railed on in the defense of a tyrannical despot.
I respect your opinion but I can't share it. I would rather have nothing to rail about when it comes to my country and it's President. But I cannot sit silently by while I see so many things going horribly wrong.

I think waiting for an entire year is a good thing. When it comes to war i'm of the opinion that you wait, weigh all the other options, look for alternatives. Its when you prematurely rush into war that you slip up and do it wrong. Time is good when it comes to war, it gives the nation a chance to vent anger and vengeful feelings. Anything done in anger is bound to fall. Bush is taking his time and rightly so.

I havent seen him "beg" or "cajole" anyone. He has made where he stands very clear. Killing civilians is wrong, terrorism must be destroyed, you are with us or you are against us, period. Thats the way it is, simple as dirt.

He has not been rebuffed by every leader he has approached. Many countries stand with us overtly in the war against terrorism, many do just in a more covert manner. Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Quatar, Germany, Kuwait, Spain, Indonesia, just to name a few. We are not alone!



The UN in just a soapbox the third-world nations use to bash American policy good or bad. Why should Bush let some dictators and despots tell him what to do?



No we dont ignore this in the least! You keep repeating about the terrible amounts of civilians our military is seemingly trying to kill. The military does its best to try to keep minimal civilian casualties.

What also makes it hard is Saddam is the kind of guy who puts his weapons bunkers under hospitals and schools. Just like Hitler did when we were bombing his factories in the '40s. The man is sick! He holds his soldiers and weapons in higher esteem than school-children!



And i already refuted that baseless attack. Here is an article to further my point. The New York Times. Overstepped our authority? Bush and the four other permanent members decided to keep the documents been the five of them so as not to break the non-proliferation treaty, in case the documents contained specifications for nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the big 5 are already nuclear powers, so that is not a problem.






It will save lives. Iraq has threatened to hit us many times. Bush is thinking ahead. Saddam can buy the long range missle technology from North Korea(yes they have it). We already know he can hit our ally Isreal. Obtaining that technology from the North Koreans he would be able to hit our friends in Europe. He could use this as blackmail against the USA to further his twisted agaenda, if you dont do this or this, we'll hit Israel or Europe with a nuke. Another question: Are Isreali lives or European lives any less valueable than American lives? If he can hit them later, we should stop him now before he can!

Once again we are NOT targeting civilians. Speculation? He has done it before, he can do it again!



No we are not doing enough there, do you have any articles on this? I think we are doing all we can though. PS this kind of thing was happening in Afganistan before we started hunting Al-Quaida there.



I believe they have this proof. The administration is (imo) just waiting to show it in the advent Bush does decide to go to war. I "think" there are ties to Al-Quaeda. Saddam along with Iran and Saudi have ties to terrorist groups in palestine, why wouldnt they have ties to Al-Quaeda?




North Korea is very much a threat. Iraq is very much a threat. North Korea is a completly different situation, and warrants a completely different response. They'll get whats coming to them, you'll see. Haste is our enemy, we must take our time.



You are absolutly right. We must also take into context the reason behind his "you are with us, or you are against us". The political climate was much hotter when he made that remark, the public was calling for blood after 9/11.
He had to do something. But like wishy washys, us americans have shied when realized more of our own blood would mixed in the pool. Bush like a true leader, has stayed firm and consistant and seeks to protect America.

Just because the war on terror is no longer popular, there is no reason to end it.

Travis

I think waiting for an entire year is a good thing. When it comes to war i'm of the opinion that you wait, weigh all the other options, look for alternatives. Its when you prematurely rush into war that you slip up and do it wrong. Time is good when it comes to war, it gives the nation a chance to vent anger and vengeful feelings. Anything done in anger is bound to fall. Bush is taking his time and rightly so.
Waiting is a good thing...that isn't what he did though. If we do not go to war he will look foolish at this point. I don't think he will allow that to happen even if war is not needed.

I haven't seen him "beg" or "cajole" anyone. He has made where he stands very clear. Killing civilians is wrong, terrorism must be destroyed, you are with us or you are against us, period. That's the way it is, simple as dirt.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

He has not been rebuffed by every leader he has approached. Many countries stand with us overtly in the war against terrorism, many do just in a more covert manner. Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Quatar, Germany, Kuwait, Spain, Indonesia, just to name a few. We are not alone!
Great Britain is the soul country that is completely with us. Canada is not happy about our war drums nor are many of the others you mentioned. They are being bullied into supporting us.

The points about the U.N. and the handling of the reports we will also have to agree to disagree. I found it embarrassing the way we handled it.

The same can be said about the way Bush has acted about Turkey's admission to the EU. I found that embarrassing as well. But, there will always be those that excuse his behavior. I'm just not going to be one of them. He is an embarrassment to me.

A bully is a description of what others see. From reports I have seen from people on television ( Jimmy Carter, reporters on Lehrer Hour ) the world does indeed see us as a bully. We are viewed to be as a country who could care less about another country unless there is something in it for us. We threaten and do not respect the sovereignty of other countries.

America is most definitely a bully. In a recent survey, 65 percent of the people questioned at random throughout the world dislike the united states and Bush in particular intensely. Bush has been pushing people around, twisting their arms from the day he got to office. Not a day goes by when you don't see Bush's threats being trumpeted on the air by his stooge media. If you wanna see some bullying go to any Airport and watch Ashcroft's Croft goons abusing innocent people, who have done nothing, who merely want to get on their planes, without search warrants, without probable cause without oath or affirmation. Bush has thorough contempt for the constitution and bill of rights. Bush has content for the opinions of mankind.

To he intends to make an oil grab on Iraq, that is a given. He has been frustrated so far because he is unable to get the necessary fig leaf he needs to cover his naked aggression. But the whole world knows that it's naked aggression. The whole world knows that it is an oil grab. Bush has managed to estrange the Secretary general of the U.N., Kofi Annan, and just about every other country with his pressure tactics. Bush has exercised his veto with abandon, sometimes even against the united kingdom and has been outvoted fourteen to one and prevailed only because of his veto power. This situation is obviously unacceptable. It is predictable and foreseeable that members of the united nations are gonna get tired of being pushed round by this dimwit and will start resigning from the united nations until at last there will be but three members united states the united kingdom and Israel. The new united nations, composed of the rest of the world, will convene in Geneva and it will reorganize similar to the old united nations except on the principles of egalitarianism, so no one will have a veto. Bush Blair and the madman Sharon will be isolated. The world simply cannot stand to be pushed around by another Adolf Hitler.

The same can be said about the way Bush has acted about Turkey's admission to the EU. I found that embarrassing as well. But, there will always be those that excuse his behavior. I'm just not going to be one of them. He is an embarrassment to me.

It appears that this backfired on him. According to recent articles he may have actually hurt Turkey's chances with his tactics.


Guardian

These words scare me. I remember almost identical words being said about Viet Nam.
As for the question, Is the U.S. a bully? A bully is someone more powerful picking on someone less powerful. The United States assassinated President Diem of South Viet Nam, Patrice Lamumba of the Congo, and has used it's overwhelming power to bully any nation it disagrees with. The U.S. has attacked it's neighbors Mexico and Canada, and is presently putting the arm on most of the free world in search for support in a rather dubious campaign against Iraq.
The U.S. isn't the only bully, but the others don't try to hide the fact.
As for possession of weapons of mass destruction, why single out Iraq? Stalin had the bomb and he was a lot crazier than Sadam. Bush has the bomb and he is dumber than a bag of hammers.

"Tell me, Worf, do they still sing songs about the Great Tribble Hunt?"

(Sorry i didnt reply for so long)

Ok where do i begin...

Danya,



How can you say that? He is still waiting! If he is not waiting, then what is he doing?
I dont believe it will turn that way, Bush has more moral fiber and character than that. Thats what this is all about, he is waiting to see if war is even necessary.



Great Britain and Israel! I thought i explained erlier why some of the european countries could not overtly support us. (Refresher: They have big oil ties, and large muslim/arab populations)

I dont see any being bullied into supporting the USA. I watch them slam Bush and everything he does all the time. They do whatever they want, NATO is a farce, the EU (imho) is Anti-American, the list goes on. They arent being controlled or bullied in any way!



I agree that seemed pretty strange. I'm still reading and pondering the situation.

More to come...

Travis

Travis,

I just want to compliment the way that you debate. I never feel attacked or insulted even if we don't agree....just wanted to say thanks for that.

Perhaps we should ask the Serbians, or the Panamanians, or the Vietmanese, or the Iraqis, or the Afghans, or the Cambodians, or the Guatemalans, or the Libyans, or the Chinese, or the Koreans if America is a bully. The will probably all give the same sort of response.

Yankee Go Home!

Jerry,



So what if "65%" hate the USA. (Polls can be twisted any direction)
Ok lets say that your figure is right and 65% do.
Are the majority of people right is their thinking?

The majority is not always right.
Here are some historical examples:

The Inquisitions, the majority supported that.
The Holocaust, the majority of Germans and Poles supported that.
The Slave trade, the majority supported that.

I dont believe the supposed animosity is warranted.



I mean no offense, but we have lots of baseless accusations, assumptions, and exaggerations.

Whose arms is Bush twisting? And what for?

Bush has no "stooge media" neither the left nor the right actually controls the media.
Ashcrofts "Goons" abusing people at airports? This doesnt really happen, i hope you are just being festecious. The checking of bags and people is necessary for the safety of the people boarding the plane. If you dont want your bags checked dont fly! Besides you should not have anything to hide from the inspectors.

Where has Bush shown himself to hold contempt for our founding documents? The opinions of mankind? Say what you want but back it up.



That is just wild speculation and a last grasp from the extreme left. This is no oil grab. This is over American security now and in the future.



Prove it.
There are legitimate reasons for all decisions made in the UN. I cant refute this point because it cant even stand (not a personal attack).



I believe the real situation is very different from your hypothetical. The US has finally found a leader who will stand up for America in the melee we call the United Nations. Bush and the other "dimwits" are sick of being pushed arounds by despots and criminal elements.



I dont appreciate it when the leader of the free world is compared to Hitler. There is no comparison at all, no correlation, none at any medium.
The same can be said for the other leaders.


Travis

The reason I do not believe it's over American security is because nothing is being done to keep us secure at home...not on our borders and not in our ports. This comes directly from one of the Representatives on the appropriations committee.

Whoa two more posted when i was typing up the last one.

Danya, Thank you. I appreciate the intellectual challenge, you provide clear and intelligent arguments.

Queenmandy85,

Bush didnt do any of those things. I'm not defending the wrongs comitted by past administrations.

Forgive and Forget right? America changes with each administration.

Danya,

Well, Bush tried and is continually doing so. Though is disagree with the methods used by our entire government ( I.E. Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act Hr 5005 , Etc). I have yet to dream up any legitimate alternative.

Our ports and borders need to be secured. The tools are there, buried under an inflated beauracracy.

Bush and I both, feel that Saddam is dangerous. He should be removed from power and his people liberated.

The war on terrorism is broad, and needs to be fought wherever possible.

Travis

Again, according to the guy ( Obey (sp) ) from the committee they have been working on this with a bipartisan approach, it's been the White House that has not only held up funds already approved but has stifled any discussion about it.

For instance, instructing the coast guard NOT to go to congress with their needs. I wonder why Bush would do this and why the news isn't spending more time discussing how much we have NOT improved in the last year in that regard. This puts us at more risk than Saddam even if he did have WMD's, IMO.

I'm looking for an article on this. Your right the media has stifled this one.

Do you have a link?

I'm wondering why Bush would do somthing like this too.

I think the condition is getting better. We have had no further attacks since the mad mailbox bomber. I'm staying optimistic, when the Feds get reorganized (soon i hope) they'll be sending guys out to the ports and borders.
We captured 9 more al-Quaeda suspects today. Pakistan Daily Times

Travis

I'll see if I can find something, I watched him on C-Span yesterday and another interview with him this morning on c-span again...what is that show called where they call in and ask questions on the Dem or Rep line...Washington something...I can't think of it.

Here are two stories I found...I haven't read them both yet I just know they are related to what this guy has said.

Washington Post

Milwaukee SJ

Milwauke SJ


Time to write my congressman. It'll give him something to read in his plush Mercedes Benz trip from the golf course. Bush is right about the money here.



Obey wants a lot more money. Bush doesnt need to give it to them. We already spend mountains of cash on the pre-existing organizations that comprise homeland security. They need to get up and do something. The feds can do it without all the taxpayers left arms. Get creative Mr. Congressman.

(I wasnt able to get through the Post link)

Travis

Basically, what you have is a bunch of fingerpointing and you have to decide on who to believe.

You may want to read the Post article because it's comments are from Edwards but it's basically saying the same thing. I'll try the link again below.

WP

Yeah fingerpointing seems like a favorite pastime at Washington.

I'm still not able to get through the WP site. My proxy doesnt like their advertisement settings, it think.

How is it that Bush can push through money for a tax cut at the drop of a hat but says he can't allocate money for the Coast Guard, border patrol, or other security measures because Congress won't let him? I've noticed that what Bush really want's he gets, even against incredible odds.

The War effort and the tax cut both require a huge amount of money yet those were pushed through first with Bush taking all the credit. Why can't he protect us at home with the same effort?

To really get Sadam out, Bush should announce a change of heart and proclaim Sadam is not only America's friend, he is America's best friend and ally in the middle east. Shower him with money and aid. He won't last six months.

Well, sacrifices have to be made. The tax cut was needed to stimulate the economy. He had to choose between the economy and the defense, a hard choice. He knew that that the Coast Guard etc would benefit from a stronger economy in the long run. The defense cant be supported without taxes, and a poor economy yields poor tax income for the government.
Bush gets what he wants because he is right in his thinking and congress knows it. The tax cut does not require a huge amount of money. The cut will help businesses, the businesses will hire workers, the workers will pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, personal property tax, etc. To me it is all the same effort, the economy and defense go hand in hand.
I dont mean to slam the democrats, but those attacking the white house have it wrong. The supposed "wealthy 1%" create jobs for the rest of us. When they go down so does the working man. I've seen many large businesses, airlines, and manufacturers laying off many people. They are being taxed a '90s high economy tax. The profits are not there anymore to pay these tax fees. The natural reaction is to cut off drains and save money. I'm of the opinion that the less the feds get involved the better.
A tax break is helping protect America at home. Who pays for the defense? Taxpayers. The tax cut will eventually increase tax revenues in the long run.
Some core conservative ideology.

Also a rebuttal for Obey, all these nice programs cost money. You cant spend what you dont have. Cut the beauracracy, cut the pork, cut the waste and then you will have some money to play with.

(Thanks for the article )

Tax cuts support the war on terrorism.

Travis

I see this thread has turned into mainly a debate about whether or not we are "bullying" Iraq. It may be cogent to look at history a bit here.

What are the driving forces of U.S. foreign policy? There are a number of theories people use, and I'd like to look at them.

1. Morality. This would be the "humanitarian intervention" belief.

Well, for this let's start with World War II. Though it is popular to look back and see our involvement as a sort of good guys go save the Jews from Hitler thing, I'm not so sure that's supportable by facts. First, we didn't enter the war when Hitler started killing Jews. In fact, before he started killing them, he was expelling them from Germany. The problem is, no one wanted them. The U.S. decided, when it came out that Jews were trying to get out of Europe, to allow a grand total of... zero refugees into the U.S. Interesting.

OK, how about the Bangladesh massacres? 1970. West and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). West Pakistan was the dominant half. In 1970 the East Pakistani contingent (the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan were of a different ethnic group) of the government gained enough support by election to get a bid for independence from West Pakistan. So the dictator (who had allowed the elections) cancelled them, arested the Bengali politicians, and sent the army to East Pakistan, where they proceded to massacre thousands, some believe millions of citizens. At the time, Kissinger, the NSA, told the NSC that we were to "tilt" toward the Pakistani government, that the president wanted to put no pressure on the Pakistani government. We never mentioned it to them. At all.

Fast forward. Rwanda. 1994. In 100 days the Hutu majority kills somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsis. After we sent in planes to evacuate the Americans and Europeans there, Senator Bob Dole said we got the Americans out, that should be the end of it for us. And it was indeed. Clinton barred his diplomats from using the word "genocide." Of course we had signed some UN agreements saying we would take certain actions in the case of genocide.... When the killing began, there were 2,500 UN troops in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. The security Council met and, though the US pressured to have them all leave, 270 were left there. A few weeks later, the Council met again, because the killing showed no sign of stopping. This time, they decided to send in 5000 troops, but that it would be volunteers. A few African nations offered to send in the troops needed, but they didn't have the means to get their troops to Rwanda. The US at this point said they would be happy to SELL some troop carriers. Well, they haggled over the price for 5 weeks. Finally the Council decided to send the French troops in. By the way, guess what country happened to be sitting in the security council that year? The Hutu government of Rwanda. And who were their major arms suppliers? The French. So of course when the French finally arrive, the killing is mostly over, because the Tutsis had managed to overthrow the Hutu government. So here, the US wasn't the worst actor, but we supported the French, and we said and did nothing.

In the 70s, we armed the Kurds, to fight against the Iraqi government. But when Iraq starts to massacre the Kurds, they turn to the US and ask for asylum. After all, we had funded them, we had armed them. We turned them down. Henry Kissinger said, "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

2. OK, maybe we are intervening to spread democracy?

Iran: Until 1953, Iran's economy was dominated by a British oil company, the name escapes me. In 1953, the Majlis, the Iranian parlaiment, decided to nationalize this comany (allowed by international law, and in the US known as the right of eminent domain). In that same year, the CIA helped overthrow the government, and installed a brutal dictatorship (not a democracy). The first action? to de-nationalize the oil company, splitting it mainly between the US and the UK.

Guatemala: Same thing, this time it was a US corporation, United Fruit Company. Their land got nationalized in Guatemala. On their tax returns, they had stated that the land they held in Guatemala wa worth $0.12 per acre, so that is what the Guatemalan government agreed to pay them. They were going to distribute the land to peasant farmers (the UFC had not been using the land to grow on). The CIA helped overthrow that government, what did it get replaced with? A brutal dictatorship.

Vietnam: 1954, the end of the Indochina war, the French went south, the Vietnamese Independence Movement under Ho Chi Minh went north. in Two years, there was to be an election to decide on a government for a unified Vietnam. President Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs, every single serious observer agrees that if elections were held at the time of the end of the fighting, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote. So when 1956 rolled around, the United States and the puppet that they had installed in the south, Ngo Dinh Diem, refused to allow the elections to happen, and the next two decades was a war over that issue.

Our allies in South and Central America, and across the globe, have often been brutal regimes. Indonesia, with Suharto and the East Timorese genocide, all over the place.

So much for promoting democracy.

3. Wait, maybe we're promoting capitalism?

In the late 1880s, America acted in a protectionist way to get people to buy American textiles. At that time the textile industry in Britain was able to produce more textiles more cheaply. In order to get our citizens to support American businesses, we imposed high tariffs on imported textiles. Well, look at what we do now - we aggressively bully countries into lowering or eliminating all protectionist tariffs, which allows our businesses to undercut local businesses, which tends not to do much to the standard of living in these countries.


Has America been a bully? Indeed it has, and it continues to be. What's happening with Iraq right now is complicated, because Saddam is a despotic ruler, no doubt about it. What worries me most is our incredibly poor track record for what happens next. What will we replace him with? A democratic government in a place like Iraq (contrary to the ideas of those who think the Iraqis will be hailing us as the great liberators) is likely to be a thorn in the side of our business dealings. No, we have a much easier time doing deals of the kind we like to make with dictators - because they tend to have no problem with exploiting their own citizens to line their own pockets with dollars. So more than the rightness/wrongness of doing this war, is, what's going to happen next? I think it would be naive to just assume that we are going to install a democracy in any recognizable sense.

Great post Quark, well thought out.

This is going to take me a while...

No. 1# Issue: Morality



Iraq/Nazi Germany

(I believe we did the right thing destroying the Nazi Empire.) It was not over the Jews at all historically. The Japanese attacked the United States, the US retaliated, the Nazis were allied to the Japanese, therefore the Nazis declared war on us. (This is all historical fact, if you wish to question this and others, i will find some texts.) We didnt find out about the holocaust till the war was already raging.
Side note-
That was wrong of the US to not accept the refugees. (The brits wouldnt let them into Palestine either, Russia/Poland still had pogroms and "Jew Hunts") They had no where to go.

The clincher comes in here. We realized what we had done, we realized how wrong we were. After the end of the war the US was instrumental in pressuring Great Britain into even allowing the Jews to return to their ancient homeland. Then after the creation of the United Nations we pushed heavily for the creation of Israel.
We tried to make up for our terrible injustice to the Jews. Moraly we started out wrong, realized the err of our ways, and attempted to mend our moral bankruptcy.



I'm not sure if all the events in this paragraph are completely sound to history. I can not speak with much authority on the Bangladesh Massacres, because i havent yet sorted all the conflicting views. I'm looking in to this.



Another two instances of Genocide. I can think of many other unlisted ones as well. These instances only prove the awful double-standard of US/Euro foreign policy, dictated by wishy-washy election minded politicians. They do not have anything to with whether or not the USA is bullying Iraq.

A war in Iraq is a moral consideration. Bush knows the people are oppressed, Bush knows of the massacre, Bush knows of the yearning for freedom. These injustices are reason enough for me to take out Saddam.
Bush is trying to end the double-standard. The supposed "evil axis" of tyrants, despots, and crimminals will fall. Our president has the third-world tyrants shaking in their boots, and rightly so.

Issue No 2# Spreading Democracy



Yeah our government has some skeletons in the closet. Mistakes, you learn from them. I think the Feds have finally realized that what we do out there sometimes comes back and bites us in the rear. It hurts too. We need to finish what we start.
In an ideal situation we wouldnt be riding alongside the despotic rulers. We would run them off the range.
We have to be careful, there are a lot of tyrants, and we cant take them all at once. Bush is playing some for what they are worth, and taking out others. Terrorists, little Hitlers, they'll fall in the end.
We are working out a democratic government in Afganistan, i think we will do the same in Iraq.

Issue No 3# Are We Promoting Capitalism?



I dont see us doing that as much anymore. I've seen the beef and steel industrys fall to foreign competition in my short lifetime. It has hurt us, but thats capitalism. You win some, you lose some. Other countries are just as competitive. The Japanese are vicious in the electronics/automotive market. The EU has raised ridiculus tarrifs and bans on Illinois/American grain. The Taiwanese and the steel, the Brazilians and the cattel/corn/beans, on and on. Its universal in the free world, you protect your own markets.
Capitalism can be ugly but it works.

Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism all share the same stable.



We have a dirty track record and Bush is cleaning it up. Afganistan is being rebuilt, and the Northern Alliance is hammering out a democracy. We are supplying much aid in addition to the charity organizations and church groups.
Personaly, i dont think we should be buying all of that oil from the arabic nations. Then they would have no card over us. Why dont we use the ethanol we produce here in Illinois? The other year they had a pile of corn at the elevator that just rotted...the gov could buy that really cheap, corn is worthless anyway . What do i know, the oil industry has more money to back the anti-ethanol studies than whole lot of us combined for some time.
Maybe i am naive thinking that, but i know that something has to change there. A democracy is neccessary.


Sorry my reply is kind of a mess tonight, i think i'll have my act together tomorrow.

Travis

Now bedtime...

I'm sorry, but trying to pretend that we want a war with Iraq for the good of their people is a malicious lie. But somehow I do think you sincerely believe it's true, if only because you can say this with a straight face:

A war in Iraq is a moral consideration. Bush knows the people are oppressed, Bush knows of the massacre, Bush knows of the yearning for freedom.
Yes, dropping bombs on their families is so much better than living with Saddam as they have been doing for 20 years. I've seen pictures of those people and their homes and kids and lifestyles and it's obvious they are better off than some of the other Arab states we aren't trying to help from oppression.

Also, this sounds very familiar because it was the same song that was sung in Ahfganistan as we began dropping bombs on them. Let's look at our results in that effort, keeping in mind that in that case we had the backing and support of international money/military/and moral support. When a soldier dies there we hardly even notice it anymore. And the people are no better off than they were before.

They are still freezing to death and living in refugee camps, the women still oppressed, the Taliban still being elected to posts in nearby Pakistan, Al Quaeda and Bin Laden are still recruiting and living in the area, the drug lords are back to controlling the land, the government we put in and are supposed to be helping succeed are constant targets of assassination attempts, it's still the number one export of opium. And don't even try to say the women are so much better off because things are regressing and many are back to wearing the burhkas and needing escorts.

But we are building a road. Bush put forth his effort to bring them freedom from oppression there and failed...not only that he lost interest as soon as the bombs stopped falling. It's the bombing he likes not the freedom because that takes more effort and he isn't willing to put forth what it takes.

A tax break is helping protect America at home. Who pays for the defense? Taxpayers. The tax cut will eventually increase tax revenues in the long run. Some core conservative ideology.

How long until we can afford to patrol our borders and ports? Five years? Ten? How can we afford this missile defense system that is being rushed in by 2004 and costing trillions of dollars when missiles are not our problem at the moment. Please tell me how having that unproven piece of fluff in place is going to stop the next Al Quada attack when that is the least likely method they will use? They use regular bombs, cars, planes, vans, and their bodies and can take out thousands of people in a matter of hours. No nuclear or missile defense protects us from that.

BTW, you might want to let Korea know they are supposed to be shaking in their boots right now...because it looks to me like they are actually taunting Bush with their actions. In Germany and South Korea leaders have been elected on Anti-American platforms. More elections like that are sure to follow because the only ones we have failed to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off yet are the Saudi's and Isreal. We are in some pretty sad company. (But at least Tony Blair is with us even though his people aren't)