<p>Well personally I feel that America has never been a threat to global peace and stability until Bush became the president. Look at the lies with regards to the war in Iraq. No doubt, Saddam is notorious for all the inhumane killings and murders, but what is Bush’s justification for going to war? Weapons of mass destruction!! And what did they conclude in the end? No such weapons existed. The unilateral decision made by the US without seeking the United Nations made it seemed as though US can just do whatever she likes and yes, this makes US really very unpopular among many countries (But then, my experiences with Americans tell me that Americans are actually very nice people ) And life was really great then when US was under Clinton. We just love the Republicans, don’t we? :)</p>
<p>In fact, I once read a commentary that US attacked Iraq because of the fact that Bush knew that there’s no weapons of mass destructions. If there are (in the case of North Korea), Bush will think twice before invading. So that is why I support the rise of China as it will make the world more equitable. But of course, I believe that China should allow more freedom of expression to her people. And trust me, China has not been and will not invade another other countries judging from past experiences. If you look at history (other than those lands that rightfully belong to China), China has never set sail to invade other countries. During Marco Polo’s time, China was more superior than many countries that existed. But did China invade those countries? No. If she had invaded, I think Chinese would be the language everyone is now using… We would not have TOEFL, we would have TOCFL… </p>
<p>And please, democracy may be the best solution for the United States. But that does not mean it is the best solution for all countries. You do have to take into account the culture, the educational level of the citizens and many other factors. Take Gobachev’s perestroika for example. He introduced democracy and abolished communism, introduce capitalist thoughts and removed many red tapes. But has Russians’ lives improve under him? I would say no. In fact, it is ironic that Times magazine actually named him as the person of the year in 1990 when many Russians detest him, even now. And also, some people may lamment the fact that Singapore is paternalistic, erm, lacks freedom of speech and yeah… you know human rights and so on… But without the iron fist of the party, do you think Singapore will ever be so advanced and metamorphosized from a third world country to a developed country?</p>
<p>During the Cold War, the U.S. “intervened” in many places: funding corrupt dictators, subverting clean elections, etc. What Bush is doing is neither unique nor shocking.</p>
Actually, American has been the driving force in maintaining global peace and stability. There are many, many dictatorships, etc. that would have little problem invading their neighbors and taking whatever they wish were it not for fear of U.S. intervention. Kuwait remains an independent country only because the U.S. said so. Israel remains an independent country only because other countries know the U.S. will back Israel. Democracy is the only hope to stop the religious fanaticism growing in the middle east. </p>
<p>“Imposing” democracy on other countries is a good thing. It is garbage to say other cultures won’t accept democracy. Japanese culture under the Emperor was just as different from democracy as today’s middle east countries’ cultures are different from democracy. </p>
<p>
To lie one must know that the statement made is untrue. Merely being inaccurate or incorrect is not to say a lie. President Bush had stated no lies regarding Iraq. Indeed, I would suggest it is a lie to say President Bush has lied regarding Iraq. Anything President Bush said about Iraq WMD, President Clinton said many times (are more persuasively).</p>
<p>In otherwords, I don’t buy your anti-American slop.</p>
<p>Yes, the U.S. have had some positive influence in the past; you cite Japan and Kuwait as examples. But that’s a very favourable selection. Let’s just examine the Gulf War… What happened after it? Oh yeah, thousands of Iraqis died under the UN sanctions. Repeated strikes on the infrastructure by the U.S. military sure didn’t help either. Of course the Americans (or the rest of the world) didn’t care anymore now that the Kuwaiti oil wells were secured from crazy old Saddam. “No more Munichs…” Ha!</p>
<p>No educated person needs to be told what happened in South and Central America during the Cold War. </p>
<p>And yes, Israel continues to exist thanks to the U.S.'s phenomenally strong support, but it’s at the cost of the Palestinians. I know that Israel has a right to be paranoid ever since it was repeatedly attacked by the Arab nations, but it’s not as if their hands are clean either. A lot of their retaliatory measures go beyond acceptable revenge. What was the Israeli-Palestinian body count in recent times? Like 100:2000 or something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, democracy in America sure isn’t helping to stem the religious fanaticism growing there. If anything, the unfavourable dumbass-to-normal ratio is hurting the anti-fanaticism cause. What if you have a bunch of crazy Muslim extremists who are the majority? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So Clinton’s God, now? Whatever he says is the truth? No WMD = Bush lied. Or you could say that Bush was stupid, but I don’t think that’s really an improvement. If Clinton said it more convincingly, then he lied as well. But at least he didn’t lead an internationally disapproved war based on those lies. The difference was that Clinton was all hot air. Bush now has 2000 dead American soldiers on his watch, not to mention the thousands of Iraqis that don’t matter quite as much as those good old boys from the States.</p>
<p>“What was the Israeli-Palestinian body count in recent times? Like 100:2000 or something?”</p>
<p>Actually, the count stood earlier this year (not sure what it is now) at 1010 Israelis killed and 3179 Palestinians killed since 2000. Out of the 1010 Israelis killed, 764 were non-combatants (civilians) killed by Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, 1099 were civilians killed by the Israelis. Palestinians killed 406 people on their own side, while Israelis killed 22 on their own side.</p>
First, there is no proof of this. Second, you have omitted an important intervening cause – Saddam Hussain. Iraq was permitted to sell significant amounts of oil (I think it was 2 million per day, but I could be wrong on that number). If Saddam had not diverted the money earned from those sales to building palaces, building a military to protect himself, and spending on his family, there would have been more than enough money to go around. (The money he spent on palaces could feed most African nations for a year or more.) Third, the U.N. sanctions did not work – the oil for food scandle has proven that. </p>
<p>
The Palestenians regularly attacked Israel shopping centers to kill as many children as possible. Israel’s response has been on military targets and, frankly, has been quite mild. I say mild because if Mexico started sending suicide bombers into American malls, America would not engage in limited military actions. If Palestine wanted to stop Israel’s response, all it had to do was stop the suicide bombers. Palestinians are solely responsible for continuing the conflict with Israel. </p>
<p>
I am not sure how you drew this infrence from my post. Nevertheless, my point was that President Clinton and every country with an elaborate intelligence process believed that Saddam had WMD. When President Bush asked CIA Chief George Tenent if Iraq had WMD, Tenent said “It’s a slam dunk.” For you or anyone to suggest that President would seek war with Iraq all the while knowing that Iraq did not have WMD is utter nonsense. Saddam had every opportunity to prove he did not have WMD but he did not do so.</p>
<p>You continue to place blame on America, yet you excuse the person truly to blame – Saddam. Possibly dictators appeal to you, they don’t to me.</p>
<p>Razorshap: Definitely dictators do not appeal to any, but nevertheless, it’s true that Bush went to war with Iraq as they do not have any WMD. Look at N. Korea, they have nuclear weapons. Why is it that US does not want to lead a war against North Korea this time round but resort to diplomatic actions? This is because Bush knows too well the consequences if he dares to lead a unilateral war against North Korea. </p>
<p>For the Kuwait war, US led the war because of their own interest - oil. I dont see US intervening in the civil war in Sudan. Neither do they care about massacres in many other countries. Why? Because Africa serves no interest to the US. Countries ultimately care for their own interests and this is true for all countries.</p>
<p>US refuses to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which is Asean’s non-aggression pact which will prohibit pre-emtive strikes on other countries. “The fundamental principles of TAC are mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations. It also states the right of every state to be free from external interference, subversion and coercion and champions non-interference in the internal affairs of one another.” China has signed it, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Russia has signed it. Yup, but the US refuses to sign the treaty. US has also refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty and continues to pollute our environment by releasing large amount of CO2. But well, this action has already started haunting America through the increased intensity and frequencies of hurricanes that struck America. That is not to say that China does follows the Kyoto Treaty. But then the world community has decided not to be so stringent with developing countries… So judge for yourself and see whether the US has been the “driving force in maintaining global peace and stability” all these years.</p>
<p>And for goodness sake Razorsharp, please do not say that ““Imposing” democracy on other countries is a good thing”. Like what I said in my previous post, there are many factors to successfully governing a country. Look at Philippines for example. Democracy led to an actor who know nuts about governing to be the president. If a country mainly consist of people who are not highly-educated, democracy will lead to electing a president who is popular (he can be good-looking, nice) but not capable of governing. Sometimes, it is important for a leader to impose policies that are unpopular with the people (for Indonesia’s case: reducing subsidies on oil)</p>
<p>Anyway, I am not saying that US is a menace to the world. I definitely agree with nbachris2788 about US’s positive contribution to the world. But then again, that’s in the past (Here I am talking about contributions to world stability and peace). US has definitely more contributions to the world in terms of scientific and technological contributions and I am really thankful for that.</p>
<p>/quote Palestinians are solely responsible for continuing the conflict with Israel. /quote</p>
<p>Razorsharp, I guess you should try to look at things from multiple perspectives. Israel’s occupation at the Gaza strip and many other incidents (sorry, but I dont know much about this issue) have shown that it is not only Palestinians that is to be blamed for the ongoing conflict. But anyway, I am really glad that at the least there’s some “reconcilation” going on and I definitely hope that there will be peace in the region. I am really sad when countless of Palestinians and Israelities died and most of them are civilians.</p>
<p>Oopss… How do I quote?? Someone please enlighten me!! Thanks.</p>
<p>lol we are screwed. china+russia=big problem for us. in all seriousness i just pray about this situation because i dont know what else can be done</p>
<p>The point is that only a fool would sincerely believe in Bush’s “No More Munichs!” mantra during the Gulf War. Why was Kuwait so special? There are many peoples being oppressed in the world back then and now. Only difference is that Kuwait was loaded with oil. Once Saddam’s slant-drilling operations were stopped, the U.S. and the rest of the world conveniently forgot that they were supposedly in this to help the Iraqi people. The UN was corrupt, and in your words, entrusted a brutal dictator with providing for his people. Meanwhile, Operation Desert Fox was destroying hospitals, water facilities, roads, etc. </p>
<p>So yeah, the U.S. did secure global stability for a little while, as long as its own interests were at stake. And of course, they’re not alone in doing that. Like anybody believes France and Russia suddenly grew a conscience and stayed out of Gulf War II because they “felt” for the Iraqis. Nah, they were in it for the oil too.</p>
<p>As for Israel and the Palestinians, keep in mind that Israel is a developed country backed by the most powerful nation on the Earth. The Palestinians don’t even have a home, much less a real army with serious firepower. Talk about David and Goliath, except Goliath is kicking the crap out of David.</p>
<p>All your statements reek of typical by-the-book neocon dogma. Any imperialism but American imperialism is evil. It’s just like those free traders who love to exploit and steal from little countries, but when people like the Canadians or the Chinese threaten to do the same, suddenly the rules change and protectionism is instituted. Your opinion is that China is a threat to global security, when in truth, it’s only a threat to American security. China invading Taiwan… Isn’t that kind of like the U.S. invading Cuba? Or any of the plethora of other nations they tried to take as rightfully theirs? Only this time, since some other non-Western country does it, I guess it’s a “global threat”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, at least you realize the truth, but that statement is quite naive. Dubya is hardly unique in going about his way; he’s just easier to pick on because he’s tactless, unsophisticated, and targeted by popular pop-punk bands.</p>
<p>Hey at the rate the Chinese economy is at right now its going to surpass the US and become the biggest economy in the world within something like a couple of decades. That is going to change things a lot. It will shake up the world. </p>
<p>And second How do you know that Bush “lied” about WMD’s or invaded for personal reasons you have no proof. Couldn’t the intelligence been inaccurate, thats what our leaders base their actions off of. Mistakes happen in everyday life, Bush hasn’t admitted it was a mistake but he’s sticking to his plan of buidling a new Iraq which in the long run will help the world.</p>
<p>Forgetting to pick up your kids after football practice is a mistake; waging a war based on half-truths or outright lies is a sin.</p>
<p>I’m no C-Span addict, but I know that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors repeatedly stated to Bush that no WMDs could be found. Basic common sense said that given Iraq’s economic situation, with the no-fly zones, constant bombardment, sanctions, etc., that they simply had no capability to secretly build an effective WMD program. Joe Wilson, who went on an investigation trip to Niger in order to check out claims that Iraq was trying to start a nuclear program, concluded that there was no such threat. </p>
<p>Now, given the doubts raised about Iraqi WMDs above, should not a government concerned only about global security and welfare of ALL peoples (not just allies) take some serious consideration before engaging in war? The Bush administration sure didn’t. And now, the bottom line, as reported by the Iraqi Survey Group, was that Saddam had the futile hope of producing WMDs in the future, but no means of doing so. So that’s it? Some washed up despot wants to get WMDs, which he has little means of getting, and that’s enough rationale to warrant a war? How convenient that this sudden overnight growth of a conscience just happens to home in on one of the world’s biggest supplies of crude oil. This wouldn’t have anything to do with America’s desire to establish as many bases around the world and hoard as many natural resources as possible before China, India, and perhaps the EU rise up to challenge their supremacy?</p>
<p>India Alone will never challenge US supremacy, either will the EU. Yet perhaps China.</p>
<p>And I dont give 2 shi*ts about China’s communist regime. If what was posted above me were true (which I do not believe it was) I would still be in favor of this war. I’m an American not some sort of Global Citizen.</p>
<p>Ruport Murdoch owns Walmart!!! wow thats news to me, and probably to Murdoch as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>India invaded Bangladesh in the 1980’s???hahahahahahahahah</p>
<p>check your facts before posting such random BS with such authority. jesus christ. murdoch owning walmart, indians invading bangladesh… </p>
<p>the lack of general knowledge or care for historical accuracy demonstrated by ya’ll is appalling… and u people are aspiring to go to some of the top schools in the country? what a joke.</p>
<p>hahahaahhaha no the best is that i got a kid in a poli sci class that always argues Murdoch and newscorp own the New York Times and thats wy they are so pro BUSH! LOLOOOOLOOLL its amazing! this is collegeconfidential not kindergardenconfidential</p>
) And life was really great then when US was under Clinton. We just love the Republicans, don’t we? :)</p>