In response to Wizkidd0123
Uh... Saddam didn't exactly terrorize either... He was a corrupt dictator. He committed genocide, that's one of the few things he actually did do --other than line his own pockets.

It's still wrong, but Saddam didn't have a whole lot to do with much.
Because destroying a country and not rebuilding it would charge Bush with war crimes punishable by death.
In response to Wizkidd0123
America gives the lowest percent of any country, in the world.

Canada gives more, even with our population. Although were not saints. We dropped from 5th place to 13th in the list.
In response to Nyck
*We are practically being peer-pressured by the UN to donate a crazy amount of money to the Tsumami victims. (I thought a donation was optional and when we gave 300 mil they said that was too low so we gave 1 bil.)

Sorry, that's one day less that there can be a war.

*We are spending money fighting the (what looks like) never ending war-

Well it is a war on a word.

*-on terrorism in Iraq. Spending money on troops, missles, guns, ammo,rebuilding things we destroyed, and many more things that come with war.

Try not having so many.

*We ARE still spending money in Afghanistan believe it or not. There ARE troops in Afghanistan and troops don't work for free, neither do their guns.

Your doing one thing right.

*Besides war and disasters, America itself has a lot of things to do to support its own economy. Gas is going up, which means supply is low.

Which means Texans start reaching for their weapons

*When Supply is low, demand is increased which means price goes up. So in order to equal out the supply and demand, more oil things have to be conquered, which costs lives.

Fix'd
In response to Stealth 2k
You're going to be hurting for allies before this term is through.

That's ok. You've got the bomb. :)
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
Uh... Saddam didn't exactly terrorize either... He was a corrupt dictator. He committed genocide, that's one of the few things he actually did do --other than line his own pockets.

Dictionary.com defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]".

Saddam's genocide was definately a form of terrorism.

I was totally against the war, but I'm not against helping the Iraqis (re)build their country.
In response to Jp
No, tere will be terrorism everywhere there is poverty. They go hand in hand, and support eachother.
In response to JordanUl
Actually, yes and no. Look at the Aryans, and the Vegans. PETA funds dmoestic terrorism --the people that support PETA or that are IN the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) are typically middle-to-upper class white people with a lot of priveledge and money.

People in the Aryan movement that call for terrorism, aren't typically impoverished either.

Anywhere there is a political/idealogical cause to fight for, there will be a militant sect that is willing to do whatever it takes for their goals to come to pass. It has nothing to do with income --just outcome.
In response to Elation
Hahaha, you can say NO all you want, thats not going to change my opinion.

Its going to be just like that cartoon Futurama one day, the world will be totally Amercia.

Thats the only damn way we will be able to force our values on everyone else, and thats what we are doing.

If everyone else wanted what we have bad enough, they would turn around and revolt.

I say leave them to their own messes.
In response to Jp
Just because the Baath party weren't terrorists after they came into power, doesn't mean they should have been left alone. If anything, they were worse than terrorists.

We took out the Baath party, but then we had to stay because of the power of the oppressive politic parties still there. If we would've left, they would have another dictatorship by now. Us being there has caused a lot of damage, but it isn't near as much damage as Saddam alone caused.
Dragon warrior2662 wrote:
Now i have to ask why it is that we are spending billions of dollars to help rebuild a country that terrorised the hell out of us instead of donating money to places like that?

Better question, why can't the money go to the people here in America who are having to live off the streets and can't even afford something to eat? It is some of the people's fault they are homeless, but with others, they were raised homeless and beacuse of a lack of education, they are homeless. Basically, America has none of its priorities straight. However, as JordanUI said, not rebuilding Iraq would be a violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention.
In response to Ter13
Very true. We may be one of the most powerful countries in the world, and we have a land of opportunities for people, but like you said, stuff like Franklin Roosevelt helps us greatly, but now here in the year 2005, the Baby Boomers are getting to the adult diaper age, and they vote in record numbers, and yet we don't have enough money for these social security payments we'll need to make for them, when they will vote to keep it.

Like everyone has heard a thousand times, communism is probably the best style of government, if we were all "Well, it's alright that I work hard and don't get fully compensated for it. But I will try my hardest anyways." But we aren't. Democracy screws some people over royally, makes some dreams come true, but one thing it definately does, is makes people have to work for their money. However, the people on the top aren't always real peaches, and always want more and more and more, and we end up getting Enron scandels, and lots of scandels can lead to stock market crashes, and destroys our economy.

In other words, just because we are all fat, middle class americans, doesn't mean our country is doing absolutely great. It's doing better than most countries, but we always need to fix our problems first.

Like OFD was saying, they need to be able to do it for themselves, or we will be feeding them for eternity. Sure, we can aid that, but first we need a surplus in order to aid that.

Also, nobody actually thinks places like England don't help people any. If we were the only country aiding other countries, there'd be practically no aid at all, because it all adds up. Everybody knows England, Austrelia, and other places help out, so nobody should need to have a fit about it.
In response to Kunark
Like everyone has heard a thousand times, communism is probably the best style of government, if we were all "Well, it's alright that I work hard and don't get fully compensated for it. But I will try my hardest anyways." But we aren't.

My own opinion, for whatever that's worth, is that the economic flaws of communism are only the tip of an iceberg of far more deadly flaws that aren't as often noticed or discussed. Yet the meme persists: "Communism is precious, yes, too good for nasty humanses." Marxism makes Sauron's Ring of Power look like a Hello Kitty charm bracelet.
In response to Kunark
people like to say that the government makes bad decisions. maybe the US shouldn't have gotten involved in vietnam, maybe they should have gotten involved in other things when they didn't. its easy to say that a decision is bad this far after its been made, but we don't know how things would have gone if the US never went into iraq, or if they left early. maybe this was the best situation that could have happened.
In response to Kunark
Actually, I think you'll find that the American invasion has caused more civilian deaths then Saddam ever caused.

I'm not too sure of that, though.

But the US definately went and destroyed infrastructure for no real reason. You didn't have to bomb the hell ou of power plants, or water systemy things. (By the way, Saddam never did that).

The attack on Iraq has caused more terrorism then it's solved.
Now organizations like Al Qaeda have an example they can point to. "America hates us! Look what they did to Iraq!".

Additionally, note that the reasons for entering the war have shifted. When Dubya got the war started, it was because of big weapons Iraq had, or was developing, or buying, or something indistinct. Now, of course, it was to liberate the country.

Anyobdy else see something wrong in liberating a country by blowing up large sections of it?
In response to Ter13
I guess you're absolutely right. But those groups don't go to the extent of mass murders. I look at in perspective to France. Back in the day things were not great, but people fed themselves and their children. They were content with the roof they had. It wasn't till people were in a state where they were dying, that they were willing to put their lives on the line to insure that their children didn't have to live under these conditions.

Now of course before the revolution, there were people who were pissed and had spats here and there but not on a large scale. I match those with the domestic terrorists. And the revolutionists with the media centered terrorists.

Heres a thought to ponder. Say things go exactly as they do for another 7500 years. The western world, a place where natural selection does not occur. And the third world, a place where human evolution continues as normal. They are now immune to disease, that we are dangerously vulnerable to. Sure we could have vaccines, but how much money would the government be willing to pay, when even this year, the elderly had to come to Canada to get shots. Canada had to cut them off because we ran out.

The world is a fragile thing, we need to clean up our act. If Bush really was as smart as they say he is, he wouldn't try to fight terrorism with guns. He would assess (sp?) the situation and fight it the right way. Giving in to a terrorist demand isn't always a bad thing. When they ask for money to be given to the people, or to have basic shelter constructed for dying families. They shouldn't have to kill an innocent American to acheive those ends.

Whenever a terrorist is shot, two more take his place. These people feel they are being oppressed by the western world, and in a lot of cases they are. If we were to just raise the standard of living across the planet to a point where everybody survived and people had another social security other than a large amount of children, (I believe) we could all get along much better. I know that in a capitalist society it isn't easy to do that, but would it kill us to try?

A modern war costs about a billion dollars a day. What if we took all the money that all of our nations have spent and used it to help the world. Would they have anything to fight for? No, because they would then have a solid foundation to build on, a solid foundation on which to create the place they want to live in. I'm not saying this would obliterate war, there will be those wanting power, wanting a piece of this 'pie' so graciously offered to them. Which is why I propose this. A revival and restructuring of the Trusteeship Council, only this time it won't be about rebuilding war torn countries, it would involve mass peacekeeping, and financial backing for peaceful idealists.

It could happen today, it could happen tomorrow. All it would take is a US decision to take it's war funds and put them into a place where a new Council could use them. For peace. I'm not an American. Maybe I don't think the same way as the average American, maybe I'm just reincarnation of the hippie movement, but you have to agree with at least something i've said here. Because with war, it's not about who is right, it's about who is left.
In response to JordanUl
Heres a thought to ponder. Say things go exactly as they do >for another 7500 years. The western world, a place where >natural selection does not occur. And the third world, a >place where human evolution continues as normal. They are >now immune to disease, that we are dangerously vulnerable >to. Sure we could have vaccines, but how much money would >the government be willing to pay, when even this year, the >elderly had to come to Canada to get shots. Canada had to >cut them off because we ran out.

What? People in the west still evolve. People in third world countries still evolve. And it is impossible to evolve immunity to disease. Viruses and bacteria evolve far faster then macroscopic creatures (they have shorter generational lengths). So any evolution that take place to strengthen the immune system, viruses or bacteria will get around very quickly. Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, for instance, have turned up ridiculously fast by evolutionary standards. Not to mention that 7500 years is an evolutionary blink. Almost nothing could happen to humans as a whole in that period.

Of course, all the above is moot, because it is actually impossible for humanity to continue in the same way we are now for another 7500 years. World stocks of oil are estimated to run dry in FIFTY years. And that's a conservative estimate. Not to mention that continuing in the same way for 7500 years would probably result in turning Earth into Venus, if you catch my drift. Seriously interesting atmospheric change would be what would happen.

Although, I do agree that the world needs some serious aid. I definately support the idea of cutting military budgets down to a minimal level (as in, take seven eighths of it away), and using the money to get people in poor countries good water, and good food. If you have that, everything else flourishes.
In response to OneFishDown
And you're willing to trust in that belief? You don't wonder, what could have been? Or what you can do now, to restore the former glory you all once held.

Face it, the world now hates you. It's not like you have to give up and accept that it has to go this way. How about an example.

Say there are two communities side by side. One, with a large wall around it, doing what they want, not taking anybody else into account. But it doesn't matter because they have this big wall, and everybody is rich, so they were able to build it.

Next to it is a community without a wall. One where people don't step on anther persons toes. Not pacifists, but doing what is right. People aren't angry at them, so they just leave them alone.

Which community sounds safer to you? Does this story sound familiar? It should, it's called Ballistic Missile Defence. And that's the reason why Canada didn't join in it. Because we are safer, just not being involved with you guys militarily anymore. You do a lot of good in the world, you fund nearly half the U.N. Something no other country has even stepped up and tried to help you with, but they also do a lot of bad things, which is what we just don't want to be asssociated with.

Think of it this way. Right the wrongs done, and you may not have to be defending yourselves when the time comes. I don't particularly enjoy our current government in Canada, but being so close to the States, is pushing them more and more to the left.

Don't think it could work? How militarized is Switzerland, how many times have they been invaded, and how are they doing financially.

Then again this is just a bunch of babble on the internet, it could never get to the people it has to, to make a difference.
In response to Jp
We are evolving so much slower than they are. Survival of the fittest no longer applies for us. If your horribly overweight, or too sick to run, you still survive, and you still can procreate. In a third world country it is a fight for survival, and if you're not cut out for it, you would just die.

I used the figure 7500 as a relative example, and I fully understood that a strain of bacteria evolves so much faster, I was just trying to convey a point. That at some time or another, they are going to get some power. They'll get a harness on it and will be really pissed off.

I know that we would need at least 6 more Earths to have everybody live at the standard we are, which isn't what I was proposing. You were looking at the wrong messages in my post, I wasn't trying to wind a story about the human race 7500 years from now, I was trying to say we need to stop right now and look at what we are doing. We might all be fabulously rich, but what happens when our means run out and we are all at the same level. The majority, the poor, and the walked on are not going to be so mercifull. Maybe a world leader doesn't have to think about saving poor people now, maybe he has to think about saving us all, in the future.

I thank you for bringing up the point of good water as a basic neccessity for all people. People as we speak are dying at the hands of some of our household brand names. Names like Avian, the ones who sell you a bottle of water for a buck or two. Buy out water treatment facilities across Africa and Asia, in the promise that they will restore it and keep it running a long time. They forget to mention how they will increase the price eight fold and leave the poorest of the poor without clean water. And we wonder why all these diseases are still rampant.

I'm glad to see you agree with me on this.
In response to JordanUl
Yeh, we should have just let Saddam have Kuwait. We should have just givin Hitler all of Europe. We should just let Kim have South Korea. We should have left Stalin alone. Theres no way those would have turned into something bad, right?

We should just give in to the terrorists, withdrawl from Iraq, and let a new Talaban get set up in Iraq. Whoo, Afghanistan too!
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6