NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I start this is in no way an attack on american's but is merely a matter for discussion. I would like to apologise if anybody take offense to the above question.
Back to the Question for example in Iraq they overthrow a dictator but seem to have caused more problems for themselves by doing so, then take Zimbabwe who are similarly in a dodgy situation with a dictator, America(BUSH) refuses to take action there.
I am in no way against the war in Iraq but i do feel the situation needs to sorted out properly?
What Do You Think?

My ideas for foriegn policy are pretty much isolationist in form.
I could not care less what was happening in a neighbouring country so long as it was not affecting myself negatively in anyway.
Nations should stay out of other nations business and let each nation solve its own problems.
My own nation, Great Britain, has enough problems without interfering in places like Iraq..

Pick one

A) Increased globalization.
B) Morally Superior attitude.
C) The need for more stuff.
D) All of the above
E) Both A and B
F) Both A and C
G) Both B and C
H) None of the above
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

[quote="MK Zygo"]Pick one

A) Increased globalization.
B) Morally Superior attitude.
C) The need for more stuff.
D) All of the above
E) Both A and B
F) Both A and C
G) Both B and C
H) None of the above
__________________________________________________


Hmm tough one, I'd either say.. D or G.. it's one of the two.. with B being the leading force IMO.

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans...

2. Iraq was a threat to the entire world? How so?

Hmm tough one, I'd either say.. D or G.. it's one of the two.. with B being the leading force IMO.
Bzzzzz Wrong. There is no need for more stuff. That’s just a want. :twisted:
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

I don't think America does think it can solve the world's problems -- certainly not with the current situation in Iraq. That is just the product of a dim-witted scheme by a small cadre of right-wing oilmen and industrialists who thought it would be a breeze to invade Iraq, oust a former ally who's past his use-by date and grab the oil for themselves, with all the concomitant benefits of a bit of patriotic hooplah thrown in for good measure.

After the debacle of non-existent WMDs and phoney links to al-Qaeda, they are left with trying to justify their actions on humanitarian grounds. I admit, I'm happy to see Saddam go -- twenty-odd years too late, but better late than never. What amazes me is that we now have a bunch of arch-right wingers claiming that George Bush was justified in spending $87bn+ and hundreds of American lives to help the poor oppressed people of another country. Given their antipathy to helping poor and oppressed people in America, I find this spiritual transformation remarkable.

The situation does urgently need to be resolved, though. One of the first steps would be the ousting, and ideally prosecution, of those who launched this ill-conceived adventure in the first place, and their replacement with people who are actually interested in finding a real, long-term and international solution.

I heard an interesting theory once regarding the current administrations approach to world policy. Basically, the Karl Rove Neo-Con Hawks in Washington see this as a great opportunity to advance a colonial United States. We're very picky about the actions we take. It tends to be less about preserving freedom and more about financial gain and long term influence. With a Bush Dynasty lined up, they see an excellent opportunity to make mad land grabs wherever they please for a muddled vision of religious purity, fiscal dominance and political importance. The United States is all for globalizim so long as we're the ones in control.

Of course, as go all colonial empires, we seem to be quickly exceeding our grasp. Eventually we'll get the message and calm the hell down.

There's also simply the theory of power. Being self-labeled "The World's Last Superpower", having one of the most dynamic economies around and being in possession of a huge military arsenal give people ideas. They're not good ideas, but they are ideas. Mixed in there somewhere is an obscure reference to preserving freedom and promoting democracy, but mostly it's about us having the biggest toys so we act like we make the rules.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans...

2. Iraq was a threat to the entire world? How so?

We are not going to open either can of worms since that would detract from the topic at hand; Why does America think it can solve the world problems? I do not see discussion of the threat of Saddam to be a relevant topic.
Stay on topic.

Hmm tough one, I'd either say.. D or G.. it's one of the two.. with B being the leading force IMO.
Bzzzzz Wrong. There is no need for more stuff. That’s just a want. :twisted:
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

Damn! You got me on that one! Hey, that was a trick question..lol no fair! I want a recount! :P

Damn! You got me on that one! Hey, that was a trick question..lol no fair! I want a recount! :P

NO MORE CHADS!!! Dangling or otherwise.

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans... The French certainly didn't...and who led the Allies? Granted, the Russians did a superb job at Stalingrad (helped by Father Winter, no doubt), but Hitler's idiocy lay in trying to win in both fronts at once. Reminds me of an old saying "if you chase two rabbits, you catch none."

2. Iraq was a threat to the entire world? How so?I guess you are one of those who are sure the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc, that were sure Iraq had the WMD, were all wrong. And that means that the movements of military cargo trucks they reported, from Iraq into Syria, just as the war of 2003 was about to start, were simple trips to the countryside. Of course, that also means that those chemical bomb materials that were intercepted going into Jordan, from Syria, somehow materialized in Syria, right? You have to believe all that, and more, in order to believe Iraq wasn't a threat to the entire world.

It is the basic hallmark of the American psyche that we are a people whose identity is based on rational self-interest, stressing the rational. We want to fix the problems of the world in order to make sure that the worlds problems don't engulf us. (A lesson we learned from WW2)
Do you think that we went into Iraq out of feeling of benevolence? We went in there in an attempt to change the face of the middle east. To make it more agreeable (sp?) to our interests.
To be more basic: Why do we think we can solve the worlds' problems? Because we are the strongest force in the world on almost every level. If we don't solve them who will? We can't let the world go to shit simply because we don't want to get involved. Having said that though, we should only get involved in messes whose solution results in a palpable benefit for us.

Damn! You got me on that one! Hey, that was a trick question..lol no fair! I want a recount! :P
Sorry, but you forfeit your soul with that one. Surrender it quietly and I promise not to mess around with it too much. :twisted:
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

I hate how we try spreading "good will". ya no sometimes we helped put dictators in power all b/c they favored US foregin policy. It's absolute ludicrous!!!

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. So what happened in Vietnam i suppose you cleaned that mess up good and proper also. Ps.You didn't clean up the mess of World War 2 in fact you only joined 1942 and only on the condition Great Britain gave up it's empire also and you were selling technology at premium prices to Great Britain which screwed them up further by leaving them bankrupt and not only that, if it was not for Britain the whole world would probably be either under russian or Nazi control

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?England forght the entire war not just when we where attacked to help Poland. It was their mess but we did our best to sort it out. If where not the size of the USA we can't help it. If you always clean up other nations messes then what did you do in Rawander (SP) and Zimbaway?

Actually, some action has been taken in Zimbabwe. 26 top Zimbabwean officials, including Mugabe, have been financially sanctioned. Then again, the world yells at us when they associated that plane of guerillas with the American gov't, and thought of it as a coup d'etat.
Anyhow, I stand firm on this belief that we can't solve all of the world's problems. However, we can be a big part in solving quite a few. Being a military and cultural power helps, but there is one factor that helps the most: money. There are probably people who would be far better managers, but that doesn't matter. What matters is who is most able to solve it, and there is a group of nations that have money. The USA is simply the richest of the bunch.
And then consider that the lack of money is at the root of many global problems. If American and Japanese money didn't exist, Asia would still have economies comparable to Africa. Arguably, even Japan couldn't be as well-off without American money. Globalisation is heralding a new age of prosperity by transferring money from rich nations to poorer ones. And as we've seen in the IT industry, it often enriches the parent economies as well.

However, this conversation is also about why the US can solve problems militarily. It can't. The military is only allowing change. Change has to be brought on by other forces, such as money. As we've seen with the fall of the USSR, technology and money know no bounds anymore, they are simply restricted. Iraq will change and ultimatly become, to an extent, more representitive, no matter what we do there. Even if you think the Bush administration is incompotent, it doesn't matter. They--or any government--can't change anything. It's those who do business in Iraq, who bring ideas into Iraq, that will really change things. Americans just tend to be more able to change the world than some other populations.

Of course, everyone's probably wondering why it had to be Iraq. Any country would do. Iraq's government, however, was the one least likely to be missed. And to give you my take on why the invasion happened, it's because of what I've just said. If we can get a more democratic Iraq, the domino effect will happen, and fundementalism will loose most of its rampant appeal. We're treating the disease with the best cure that we know of, even if it isn't the best cure out there.

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

This is rubbish. Iraq presented no greater threat to world security than a brushfire war spilling out of Zimbabwe and engulfing the entire African continent. Additionally, by this reasoning, as our actions in Iraq seem to be igniting just that kind of brushfire war in the Middle East (which presents a much more concerning threat), then I guess the United States is just as big a threat to world security as Iraq was.

So, who wants to invade us to spread freedom, promote democracy and ensure world peace?

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.

It is the basic hallmark of the American psyche that we are a people whose identity is based on rational self-interest, stressing the rational. We want to fix the problems of the world in order to make sure that the worlds problems don't engulf us. (A lesson we learned from WW2)
Do you think that we went into Iraq out of feeling of benevolence? We went in there in an attempt to change the face of the middle east. To make it more agreeable (sp?) to our interests.

I think this latest adventure had more to do with the immediate economic interests of a small group.

To be more basic: Why do we think we can solve the worlds' problems? Because we are the strongest force in the world on almost every level. If we don't solve them who will? We can't let the world go to shit simply because we don't want to get involved. Having said that though, we should only get involved in messes whose solution results in a palpable benefit for us.

Laudable, in those instances where it is strictly true and not simply in the interests of those in control of American society, or their financial backers. I agree that the true general interests of the American people -- a stable, prosperous and peaceful world -- are also the general interests of humanity at large.

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans... The French certainly didn't...and who led the Allies? Granted, the Russians did a superb job at Stalingrad (helped by Father Winter, no doubt), but Hitler's idiocy lay in trying to win in both fronts at once. Reminds me of an old saying "if you chase two rabbits, you catch none."

2. Iraq was a threat to the entire world? How so?I guess you are one of those who are sure the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc, that were sure Iraq had the WMD, were all wrong. And that means that the movements of military cargo trucks they reported, from Iraq into Syria, just as the war of 2003 was about to start, were simple trips to the countryside. Of course, that also means that those chemical bomb materials that were intercepted going into Jordan, from Syria, somehow materialized in Syria, right? You have to believe all that, and more, in order to believe Iraq wasn't a threat to the entire world.

1. I suppose those 200.000 french casualties were actually victims of car-crashes or something? Oh wait...or they all surrendered and died from shame? :roll: Piss off...

2. And the situation in Iraq is really safe now...

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans... The French certainly didn't...and who led the Allies? Granted, the Russians did a superb job at Stalingrad (helped by Father Winter, no doubt), but Hitler's idiocy lay in trying to win in both fronts at once. Reminds me of an old saying "if you chase two rabbits, you catch none."

2. Iraq was a threat to the entire world? How so?I guess you are one of those who are sure the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc, that were sure Iraq had the WMD, were all wrong. And that means that the movements of military cargo trucks they reported, from Iraq into Syria, just as the war of 2003 was about to start, were simple trips to the countryside. Of course, that also means that those chemical bomb materials that were intercepted going into Jordan, from Syria, somehow materialized in Syria, right? You have to believe all that, and more, in order to believe Iraq wasn't a threat to the entire world.

1. I suppose those 200.000 french casualties were actually victims of car-crashes or something? Oh wait...or they all surrendered and died from shame? :roll: Piss off...

2. And the situation in Iraq is really safe now...

I'll present a multiple choice answer as well.

Q: Why are we in Iraq?

A) Rich Cheney is a vampire who feeds on oil and whos life span is drawing short

B) George Bush lost a bet on the Cowboys and had to invade something

C) Cocaine is a hell of a drug

D) Too many John Wayne movies in texas

E) Greed

I say all of the above
TAJ

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Sigh.... In short.... They found freedom from nothing and now they believe that they can help all of the other countries come to the smae enlightenment that they have acheived...

The intentions aren't all that bad... it's like having a big brother who will beat up people for you.

Of course, everyone's probably wondering why it had to be Iraq. Any country would do. Iraq's government, however, was the one least likely to be missed. And to give you my take on why the invasion happened, it's because of what I've just said. If we can get a more democratic Iraq, the domino effect will happen, and fundementalism will loose most of its rampant appeal. We're treating the disease with the best cure that we know of, even if it isn't the best cure out there.

Nice to find someone who isn't a total fucking idiot, somewhere I don't know if I agree that the military isn't as effective as money. I view them as equally important. I think that when combined they kick every ass on every continent. But other than that...awesome!

Okay I posted this three times...I'm a dumb dumb

AAARRGH!!!

I heard an interesting theory once regarding the current administrations approach to world policy. Basically, the Karl Rove Neo-Con Hawks in Washington....

I tend to insert my own mental "blah blah blah" after hearing inane jargon like "Neo-Con Hawks". Maybe you should spend less time listening to "interesting theories" and pay more attention to the world around you you grassy knoll, smoking gun, liberal, Oliver Stone such and so...(by the way I know i just used jargon, don't make a fool of yourself). God forbid you formulate your own conclusions based on what is actually happening in the world and not on what people are telling you is happening. "I was just saying that it was an interesting theory..." I DON'T CARE!!! God, I am tired of this bullshit idea that America is trying to make the world its' colony. No, we are trying to spread our ideas of representative democracy and capitalism (i.e. ideas that work) to the rest of the world in order to make it safer for us. Fucking.....BWAAAARGH!!!!!

I tend to insert my own mental "blah blah blah" after hearing inane jargon like "Neo-Con Hawks". Maybe you should spend less time listening to "interesting theories" and pay more attention to the world around you you grassy knoll, smoking gun, liberal, Oliver Stone such and so...(by the way I know i just used jargon, don't make a fool of yourself). God forbid you formulate your own conclusions based on what is actually happening in the world and not on what people are telling you is happening. "I was just saying that it was an interesting theory..." I DON'T CARE!!! God, I am tired of this bullshit idea that America is trying to make the world its' colony. No, we are trying to spread our ideas of representative democracy and capitalism (i.e. ideas that work) to the rest of the world in order to make it safer for us. f---.....BWAAAARGH!!!!!

Um, have you actually ever read any of my posts? Get back to me when you do. Besides, nice way to ignore the entire second half of my post there, pal.

Um, have you actually ever read any of my posts? Get back to me when you do. Besides, nice way to ignore the entire second half of my post there, pal.[/quote]

Actually I have read all of your post and have bound them with cat leather into a book that I read from every night before I bathe myself in red, white, and blue dye. Then I bite my arms until they look like mommy's face and kiss her goodnight.

Thank you for ignoring my point about not being able to read your post because everything after the jargon turns into "blah blah blah". My esteemed colleauge.

Um, have you actually ever read any of my posts? Get back to me when you do. Besides, nice way to ignore the entire second half of my post there, pal.

Actually I have read all of your post and have bound them with cat leather into a book that I read from every night before I bathe myself in red, white, and blue dye. Then I bite my arms until they look like mommy's face and kiss her goodnight.

Thank you for ignoring my point about not being able to read your post because everything after the jargon turns into "blah blah blah". My esteemed colleauge.

Hehe, you make me laugh. Thanks for playing NationStates!

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?
..and who led the Allies? Granted, the Russians did a superb job at Stalingrad (helped by Father Winter, no doubt), but Hitler's idiocy lay in trying to win in both fronts at once.


You know, it's this kind of ignorant attitude THAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF.

For two fucking years the UK stood against the greatest threat to democracy, more or less alone (but let us not forget the Anzacs, the rest of the Commnwealth, the Free French, the Polish, the Dutch). We were bombed to the brink of exhaustion. We *beat* Hitler's Luftwaffe. He had given up his invasion plans. He made the mistake of taking on Russia, which torpedoed any chance of victory.

And only then did FDR find a way to enter the war, against the wishes of Congress and the great American public. It honestly makes me wonder whether it wouldn't have been better to throw in our lot with the Russians.

The American contribution, when it came, was welcome, and made an Allied counteroffensive possible. But it didn't win the war - Hitler was already beaten in the winter of '42/'43 at Stalingrad. So don't give us that 'we saved your ass' crap. I've heard it for years - mostly from 13 year old schoolboys - and it's bloody tiresome.

This thread needs more bananaphone.

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. Yes...Nobody else fought the germans... The French certainly didn't...and who led the Allies? Granted, the Russians did a superb job at Stalingrad (helped by Father Winter, no doubt), but Hitler's idiocy lay in trying to win in both fronts at once. Reminds me of an old saying "if you chase two rabbits, you catch none."


Actually, many French people did. You forget the french resistance movements? Those who gave intelligence and aid to downed pilots? The French who bore the brunt of the Blitz first, and gave the British what aid they could before being knocked out of the war. You mistreat your allies.

Arguing that becuase France surrendered because they were cowards is like saying American POWs were cowards, just because they stopped fighting in the face of overwhleming odds. I personally believe surrender is an option to honorable men, I dislike the policy of suicide you seem to want to advocate.

Americans bore over half a million casualties in the war, but that was just a tiny fraction of the losses the world over. It was a WORLD WAR. Spell it out slowly, W-O-R-L-D. You forget yourself if you truly believe you could possibly have seen american victory without the ALLIED powers backing the US. The military situation was so spread out and complex that it was fought on nearly every continent the world over; you think the US could have won facing such a massive distance to cover? You said Hitler was a fool for fighting on two fronts...just what do you think the US was doing?We would have lost on a dozen fronts, and with each loss more troops would be arrayed against us. Anyone with even half the information on troop deployments and unit disposition would plainly see that the US was the hammer to the Allies Anvil. Both Hammer and Anvil are needed.

The threat that Iraq presented to the world is indicated by what? Their half-successful attempts to begin to create small-scale chemical weapons? Regardless of what you have been told by the Pro-war-at-any-cost-for-no-particular-reason crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis) Iraq under Saddam and his 2 stooges was a 4th rate villian that could only menace his own people within the No-fly-zone. he couldn't even control his own borders; much less attack the entire region. To assert he could threaten the world with his vast poorly led, armed, paid, motivated, military is a blind assertion. He was little more than a thorn in the side of the current US administration; they had history, nothing more.

Of course you're right the trouble we face now is because the US is just too nice. We should step up indiscriminate attacks against just about anything that moves, place massive resrictions on the freedoms of movement and speech of the Iraqis. There is no chance whatsoever of an escalation of violence spiraling out of control like it has so many times in the past. After all, Ireal has no problems whatsoever in that region, why else would we seek to emulate their tactics?

It looks good on paper to say that you're getting tough on bad guys. It feels manly to fight fire with fire, but you're forgetting something; the US is attempting to save Iraq, we don't want to destroy it. If you aim for the mouse, don't bring down the house!

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.

It can probably be said that this statement is true- NONE of the US administrations that came before George W. Bush's would have invaded Iraq... this has as much to do with a change in circumstances that came after 9/11 as did the change in ideology that came with it.

Now Dubya can certainly be said to be no ideologist- a strong believer in Christian values, yes, but no ideologist in the terms that were set out during the Cold War which defined the governments of Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and others. However, even those leaders were acutely aware of America's ability to influence the policies of other states...

..so whether America 'influences' other states to set policies for a greater good or just for the sake of US interests is arguably up to the US itself- hardly democratic as far as those 'weaker' nations are concerned, but to many neo-Cons this does not matter. States that already enjoy the 'democratic peace', according to the neo-Cons, reserve the right to wage war on those who do not, in order to bring even more nations within the sphere of 'peace' and to end any threats to the way of life of those already living in peace. This feeling has been translated into the US administration's apparent belief that it can 'change the world' for the better- that its own ideology and way of life, namely democracy and free-market capitalism, are not just right for the USA, they are right for everyone in the world, and if corrupt and despotic governments oppose that way of life, not only preventing their own people from embracing it but threatening the rights of Americans to continue to enjoy it, then, according to the current US government, war against those corrupt and despotic governments is justified.

Right or wrong?

My view: the current US administration could, as far as the ideology that drives its foreign policy goes, COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. Maybe if Condi Rice was handed a copy of Morgenthau's 'Politics Among Nations', or Waltz's 'Man, the State, and War', America might begin to think differently. Actually I think Rice has more than likely read those books, but she isn't paying as much attention as Kissinger or Vance or McNamara ever did...

...so let's try another book. 'The Prince'. By Niccolo Machiavelli. Read that, Condi. Then tell us that the wellbeing of the American people, and people of 'the West' in general, lies with trying to make the rest of the world live, act and think like us... tell us that we have the right to bomb and shoot them if they don't accept democracy and western values... tell us that those who die for the cause of bringing the democratic peace to undemocratic, war-torn areas, and those murdered in terrorist atrocities by people from those very areas we are trying to 'free', do not die in vain...

...by the way, whatever you tell us, we won't be listening.





...we'll be watching MTV.
In fact, don't try to justify what our government says and does and who our soldiers urinate on and electo-torture. Just ensure that we can watch Murdoch-owned Cable TV, eat burgers, drink beer, work in our dull, underpaid jobs with just enough extra cash to buy even more junk we don't even need, IN PEACE!! We'll even get up at 4am and got to bed at 11pm, commuting 2 hours a day, spend all day under stress, slave-driven by our low-life bosses, without ever spending any real quality time with our families, just to raise the cash so that you can ensure we get 24-hour Cable access, cheap fuel, subsidised food, and no more funking terrorists trying to funking kill us for it!!! Yeah!!!

Panhandlia you need to read a history book and stop listening to your biased teachers.

america jumped into world war 2 as it started to end britain and the rest of the allies excluding america were winning the war all america did was claim a win that wasn't theirs by dropping 2 large bombs and sending a few troops to a few places that doesnt count with millions of australians, british, new zealanders and the rest of the allied forces that died in the many years before the "american assistance" arrived. If the rest of the world hadn't of been in that world from the beginning you would be german or your grandparents would have been in a concentration camp. Because even though hitler was killing jews he may well have killed all of us for having stepped up against him if he had one.


as for your intelligence or lack there of on Iraq read the papers and watch the news it's been headed for almost a year "NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND" also read the articles about the intelligence agencies admitting the flaws in their sexed up claims. The only theing america has found was what they were after OIL did you not notice the engineers from the biggest american oil companies securing and ship the oil as soon as american forces had semi secured Iraq.

You really should read history books and newspapers
and stop listening to that imbosile of a president
Bush "the french don't even have a word for entreprenuer"

err it is a french word

This thread needs more bananaphone.

edit: vagfdsgfdjhgfjkhgdjhysjghdfjhgf I hate it when nationstates' forum connection is wonky, causing me to double post :<

And less spam.

It's not that we think we can fix all the problems - its that everyone EXPECTS us to because we are such a world "power". When we do nothing about something people say we're heartless, but when we actually try to do something people blame us and say that we're trying to take over the world. COME ON PEOPLE MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!! :evil:

It's not that we think we can fix all the problems - its that everyone EXPECTS us to because we are such a world "power". When we do nothing about something people say we're heartless, but when we actually try to do something people blame us and say that we're trying to take over the world. COME ON PEOPLE MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!! :evil:

For every country like Iraq where we walk in uninvited and start running things, there are 10 countries begging us for more money.

~puts two uglied pennies on the table~

In my opinion, there are no weapons of mass destruction. What this whole scenario boils down to is the Bush Administration wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. From some research I did a while back, the first Gulf War was a set-up against Saddam. He told us of his intentions to invade Kuwait, and we basically said that we didn't care (at that time both nations were allies), but as soon as Iraqi troops set foot inside the countries boundaries, we jumped all over him and demanded that he recall his troops from the country.

Also, did anyone note that the US basically bullied smaller countries into supporting us in the current war in Iraq by threatening to halt aide to them?

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.
I agree that many contradictions exist in US foreign policy. The consequences of our actions, however, are outside of our control, and rely on many other factors, past and present. If the Arab and Muslim worlds were apathetic, for example, Iraq and Central Asia wouldn't be as violent.
Anyhow, contradictions, or even ignoble intentions, can usually yeild some good results, and more often, a lot of good results. The only really ignoble intentions of foreign policy, if you ask me, are nations who want to commit genocide in anyway in their power. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. As long as you have money, they work out fine. And as the US is a republic, and thus favors that government for the most part, it's a perfect arrangement, as wealth often means liberal governments. It's my point in a nutshell, really. Or for the really short version of how I picture US foreign policy, watch Michael Douglas in his Oscar winning role in Wall Street: "Greed is good."

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.
I agree that many contradictions exist in US foreign policy. The consequences of our actions, however, are outside of our control, and rely on many other factors, past and present. If the Arab and Muslim worlds were apathetic, for example, Iraq and Central Asia wouldn't be as violent.
Anyhow, contradictions, or even ignoble intentions, can usually yeild some good results, and more often, a lot of good results. The only really ignoble intentions of foreign policy, if you ask me, are nations who want to commit genocide in anyway in their power. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. As long as you have money, they work out fine. And as the US is a republic, and thus favors that government for the most part, it's a perfect arrangement, as wealth often means liberal governments. It's my point in a nutshell, really. Or for the really short version of how I picture US foreign policy, watch Michael Douglas in his Oscar winning role in Wall Street: "Greed is good."

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.
I agree that many contradictions exist in US foreign policy. The consequences of our actions, however, are outside of our control, and rely on many other factors, past and present. If the Arab and Muslim worlds were apathetic, for example, Iraq and Central Asia wouldn't be as violent.
Anyhow, contradictions, or even ignoble intentions, can usually yeild some good results, and more often, a lot of good results. The only really ignoble intentions of foreign policy, if you ask me, are nations who want to commit genocide in anyway in their power. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. As long as you have money, they work out fine. And as the US is a republic, and thus favors that government for the most part, it's a perfect arrangement, as wealth often means liberal governments. It's my point in a nutshell, really. Or for the really short version of how I picture US foreign policy, watch Michael Douglas in his Oscar winning role in Wall Street: "Greed is good."

~puts two uglied pennies on the table~

In my opinion, there are no weapons of mass destruction. What this whole scenario boils down to is the Bush Administration wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. From some research I did a while back, the first Gulf War was a set-up against Saddam. He told us of his intentions to invade Kuwait, and we basically said that we didn't care (at that time both nations were allies), but as soon as Iraqi troops set foot inside the countries boundaries, we jumped all over him and demanded that he recall his troops from the country.
I read an article on that very topic and it all seems to logical, and saw the following video (nice music).

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html


Also, did anyone note that the US basically bullied smaller countries into supporting us in the current war in Iraq by threatening to halt aide to them?
Yup. Canada received a cold shoulder when we refused to be part of the "coalition of the willing" without UN approval. I am thankful that my country stood firm in her resolve not to be bullied into an immoral and I believe illegal war.

Why does the US think it can solve the world's problems? Same answer as, 'Why does the US act like the world's police force?'. Because, noone else will!

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.
I agree that many contradictions exist in US foreign policy. The consequences of our actions, however, are outside of our control, and rely on many other factors, past and present. If the Arab and Muslim worlds were apathetic, for example, Iraq and Central Asia wouldn't be as violent.
Anyhow, contradictions, or even ignoble intentions, can usually yeild some good results, and more often, a lot of good results. The only really ignoble intentions of foreign policy, if you ask me, are nations who want to commit genocide in anyway in their power. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. As long as you have money, they work out fine. And as the US is a republic, and thus favors that government for the most part, it's a perfect arrangement, as wealth often means liberal governments. It's my point in a nutshell, really. Or for the really short version of how I picture US foreign policy, watch Michael Douglas in his Oscar winning role in Wall Street: "Greed is good."
I watched that movie too. In the movie, greed leads to immoral and illegal acts that eventually costs the perpetrator everything in the end. I look at it like David taking down Goliath. Yeah I can see a parallel to US foreign policy there.

Historically attempts to solve problems elsewhere in the world by the U.S. have been motivated partly by a sense that no one else was stepping to the challenge and partly by a sense of responsibility as the most powerful nation to act as arbiter where necessary. Sadly both of these seem to be somewhat misguided. Most of the time the intent is good but the result is bad because people rarely agree to the solutions that the U.S. proposes or enforces. On the other hand the solutions they might choose are often genocide and other atrocities, so a little animosity is a small price to pay.
Even if these intentions are misguided, aren't the US's proposed solutions better than genocide?
Going back to my lasy arguement, however, the US nearly always has good results, sooner or later. Even the Vietnam war was, arguably, a small success for the US, though probably not enough to justify the loss of American lives. In any case, the feared domino effect didn't happen, partly because--due to a liberalizing world led by America--conditions in SE Asia improved. Basically, everything America does in the world has mixed results, at least militarily. But our actions open the door for further American attention, and not necessarily the American gov't. American businesses tend to move in the wake of American political or military actions. No matter what happens when the government gets involved, American businesses, and ultimatly American money, create win-win situations.

Certainly they are, and that's why I believe the U.S. has been in the right in most of its international actions, however some have been for rather less noble reasons and others have led to further violence. The point is that intentions, actions, and consequences do not always agree.
I agree that many contradictions exist in US foreign policy. The consequences of our actions, however, are outside of our control, and rely on many other factors, past and present. If the Arab and Muslim worlds were apathetic, for example, Iraq and Central Asia wouldn't be as violent.
Anyhow, contradictions, or even ignoble intentions, can usually yeild some good results, and more often, a lot of good results. The only really ignoble intentions of foreign policy, if you ask me, are nations who want to commit genocide in anyway in their power. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. As long as you have money, they work out fine. And as the US is a republic, and thus favors that government for the most part, it's a perfect arrangement, as wealth often means liberal governments. It's my point in a nutshell, really. Or for the really short version of how I picture US foreign policy, watch Michael Douglas in his Oscar winning role in Wall Street: "Greed is good."
I watched that movie too. In the movie, greed leads to immoral and illegal acts that eventually costs the perpetrator everything in the end. I look at it like David taking down Goliath. Yeah I can see a parallel to US foreign policy there.

The big question: Who is David? Who is Goliath?

Why does the US think it can solve the world's problems? Same answer as, 'Why does the US act like the world's police force?'. Because, noone else will!
Lets face facts. The US has the largest military might on the planet and that is a result of consistently spending as much in 1 year on defence as do the next 14 nations combined. When is enough really enough?

The US has been called upon to use that military muscle or the threat of that military muscle to diffuse some of the world's problems. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the US "police force" has adopted a new role. The attack on Iraq has been condemned around the world. It was not brokered with the blessings of the UN Security Council, and many traditional allies decided to stay home, rather than join the "coalition of the willing".

So now the US who in the past has been looked up to for helping resolve problems in the world is now being looked down upon for this immoral intervention in Iraq. Many lives have been lost on both sides in an unnecessary bloodbath.

Afghanistan was necessary. Iraq reeks of US imperialism.

After the attack on Afghanistan, world terrorist attacks were lower in 2003. However, it is notable that attacks against US interests actually rose from 87 to 92. Should Americans feel more secure now that Iraq has been conquered? In my honest opinion the answer would be no.

Now, whether the US public like it or not, the US has a presence in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims that hated her just for having a US base in Saudi Arabia, and have even more hatred towards her for taking over an Arab country.

Now that the US is in Iraq, she will have to maintain a large force or else Iraq will go back to where it was before. What does this mean to beleaguered US troops? It means more stress, a longer tour of duty, and more casualties. On the home front, there is talk of re-instating the draft, but of course that will come after the election in November.

Many regimes over the past have tried to change Iraq and have failed. Will the US be successful? Only time will tell.

The only problem with this whole issue of terrorism is that the major reason for its’ very existence has been totally lost, misdirected and ignored. It all goes back to Israel and the Palestinians and the need for a lasting peaceful solution. Clinton made good inroads and since then, Bush has dropped the ball. For way too long, the US has turned a blind eye to the transgressions of both parties in the dispute. The US had a great opportunity to be truly admired as a broker of peace and it is truly sad that she didn’t seize that opportunity. Even if peace can be brokered there now, it may be impossible to undo the damage created by the invasion of Iraq.

The day that Iraq was invaded, the world changed and not for the better IMHO.

What this whole scenario boils down to is the Bush Administration wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil.

And yet, oil prices have gone up about 50% in the past year. :roll:
That argument holds no water (or oil) with me.

What this whole scenario boils down to is the Bush Administration wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil.

And yet, oil prices have gone up about 50% in the past year. :roll:
That argument holds no water (or oil) with me.
Well it wasn't about terrorists or WMD.

I think the reason why is because the world makes their problems into America's problems. Look at Pearl Harbor. Look at 9-11.

It's not really a difficult descision to me. Get out of Iraq, and let them fend for themselves. 9-11 would have never happened had we not gotten involved in this mess back in the early 90's. What got Al Queda stirred up was our lingering presence in the middle east.

We are paying Iraq more attention than North Korea. Who is more dangerous? We have yet to see one WMD in Iraq, but there has been evidence that NK may be starting a nuclear weapons operation. Of course, we went about THAT wrong from the beginning as well. Instead of refusing to talk with them, we should be open and willing to negotiate. When a nation is ruled by a madman, it's probably a good idea to simply negotiations. While we may come out on top in a nuclear war (providing China doesn't jump in, in which case it's time for the US to say "goodnight, Gracie"), I really don't want to take the chance of an ICBM hitting in my neighborhood.

... and I have no idea if that makes any sense. I think I am just tired and need to go to bed...

Two reasons:

1. The United States of America has proven repeatedly that it is the only Nation with the will and capability to clean up other nations' messes. Does World War II ring a bell?

2. As to why the US won't do anything about Zimbabwe, but went into Iraq, it's simple...which one of those two nations was (or is) the greater threat to the entire world? Regardless of what you are told by the pro-Saddam crowd (and that is what they are in the final analysis,) Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his 2 stooges was a threat, not just to that entire region, but to the world at large. The troubles the US faces in Iraq now are caused by the tendency of US armed forces to use the least amount of force necessary...something that needs to be re-evaluated, since it paints the wrong picture in the Arab world.

1. So what happened in Vietnam i suppose you cleaned that mess up good and proper also. Ps.You didn't clean up the mess of World War 2 in fact you only joined 1942 and only on the condition Great Britain gave up it's empire also and you were selling technology at premium prices to Great Britain which screwed them up further by leaving them bankrupt and not only that, if it was not for Britain the whole world would probably be either under russian or Nazi control

Ahhh what?

Sorry buddy. FDR wanted into the war really bad. America was in an isolationist attitude at the time.

Selling technology at premium prices? :lol:

Great Britain to give up her empire? :lol:

Ok I am calling you on those two. Proof please.

The question in itself is questionable? ;)

The average american hardly thinks it has to solve the worlds problems.

Hell we can't even solve our own. ;)

The war on terror is a valid stance. Afghanistan and the Taliban welcomed the "freedom fighters" and supported them. Invasion and war was valid.

However, the US has also more or less abandoned these people when they should have established a second phase of rebuilding. As a fellow worker who fled the country during the times of the Soviet love fest, he will tell you the country is in shambles. The Soviets leveled just about everything they could.

However, Afghanistan really does not have any economic resources to plunder so they don't get the kind of funding and contracts they need.

Enter Iraq: The case was made and at the time it sounded pretty damn good(from the information we were being fed). Europe may have argued against it but what tainted their views to many Americans was the fact that Germany, Russia, and France(the loudest critics in the UN) had contracts with Iraq.

The wars over(well the field level of army units that is) and then the Goverment says "whoops we made a mistake. Sadaam didn't have a serious weapons program but he was not a nice guy. In itself can be argued as a valid reason.

However, the fact that the Vice-Preisdent's company is getting a lions share of the money for "rebuilding" Iraq, negates that argument.

Now we are in a Catch-22 situation. We have to see the occupation to the end. We have to leave with some form of an acceptable goverment that has the ability to implement and enforce law on the land.

If we leave, it will only embolden the efforts of the terrorists more as they will have proven that a few hundred dead soldiers will make the mightest western power run.

So says one armchair global politician! :lol: