why is everone against the war on iraq?

[Guest LiquidSky]

Why was I against going to war in Iraq?

 

Why would anybody support one country going against the almost unanimous decision of the international community and acting unilaterally in support of its isolated beliefs? The U.S. did this because it felt it was in the right, but being part of an international community carries with it a responsibility to adhere to a group's decision.

 

But let's be real: The United States has never felt itself part of a community, going all the way back to the League of Nations. The Bush Administration has pulled us out of Kyoto, out of the ABM, and taken us to war in Iraq, thus undermining the UN. It's clear the United States doesn't consider itself part of any community, and if I were an EU member nation I would be reluctant to trust the United States in any endevour, be it military (see Iraq), trade (see steel tariffs), treaties (see ABM), or the environment (see Kyoto).

 

Going to Iraq wasn't about 9-1-1. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this and as of a few months ago President Bush admitted there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the towers. Because the U.S. has not been able to demonstrate an eminent treat, the decision to go to Iraq only looks good from a humanitarian perspective, justification enough to go to war were it the reason the troops were sent there.

 

LiquidSky's evokation of 9-11 as a justification for what the U.S. has done fails to acknowledge that terrorism happens all around the world: Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc. The United States is the only nation who has used this as a reason to undermine international authorities. If you argue that the U.S. can do this because of the scope of the attack (3,000 people) or the fact that it was a civilian target, I have two counterpoints: Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

 

So do I find it ironic that the whole world loved us after 9-11 and now are in conflict with us? Only in the same way that I find reason ironic.

 

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant

 

I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant:

 

"I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... "

 

I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you.

You said that you couldn't believe what I posted & made it sound that you thought I was ignorant (before) and then on the other post you said "No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point"

 

I was in disbelief about your manner, not your knowledge level. You misinterpreted that despite the fact that I said I was not concerned with the pro- or con-war stance vis a vis that particular comment of mine.

 

I really don't see where you're getting this.

Oh now you say "manner"? After saying you were commenting on how I chose to show my ignorance or knowledge and you still say " I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge" You weren't making a comment of my ignorance or knowledge, but you do comment on how I chose to show it....

[StupidIntel]

I'm glad I can't vote! :stunned:

 

 

:P

[rf_ucsd]

Why was I against going to war in Iraq?

 

Why would anybody support one country going against the almost unanimous decision of the international community and acting unilaterally in support of its isolated beliefs? The U.S. did this because it felt it was in the right, but being part of an international community carries with it a responsibility to adhere to a group's decision.

 

But let's be real: The United States has never felt itself part of a community, going all the way back to the League of Nations. The Bush Administration has pulled us out of Kyoto, out of the ABM, and taken us to war in Iraq, thus undermining the UN. It's clear the United States doesn't consider itself part of any community, and if I were an EU member nation I would be reluctant to trust the United States in any endevour, be it military (see Iraq), trade (see steel tariffs), treaties (see ABM), or the environment (see Kyoto).

 

Going to Iraq wasn't about 9-1-1. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this and as of a few months ago President Bush admitted there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the towers. Because the U.S. has not been able to demonstrate an eminent treat, the decision to go to Iraq only looks good from a humanitarian perspective, justification enough to go to war were it the reason the troops were sent there.

 

LiquidSky's evokation of 9-11 as a justification for what the U.S. has done fails to acknowledge that terrorism happens all around the world: Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc. The United States is the only nation who has used this as a reason to undermine international authorities. If you argue that the U.S. can do this because of the scope of the attack (3,000 people) or the fact that it was a civilian target, I have two counterpoints: Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

 

So do I find it ironic that the whole world loved us after 9-11 and now are in conflict with us? Only in the same way that I find reason ironic.

 

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant

 

I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant:

 

"I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... "

 

I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you.

You said that you couldn't believe what I posted & made it sound that you thought I was ignorant (before) and then on the other post you said "No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point"

 

I was in disbelief about your manner, not your knowledge level. You misinterpreted that despite the fact that I said I was not concerned with the pro- or con-war stance vis a vis that particular comment of mine.

 

I really don't see where you're getting this.

Oh now you say "manner"? After saying you were commenting on how I chose to show my ignorance or knowledge and you still say " I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge" You weren't making a comment of my ignorance or knowledge, but you do comment on how I chose to show it....

 

This is incorrect bordering on lying.

 

Here is the original post quoted. I don't use the word ignorant. i don't use the word ignorance. I don't use the word knowledge:

 

"I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch(sic) you went about arguing your point(?) ... "

 

Where are you getting this stuff? Are you reacting like this because of an inner fear of being perceived as ignorant? Is a defensiveness for writing up a strong feelng that you don't feel comfortable defending or don't feel you should have to defend? Or perhaps you know that my comment didn't address ignorance or knowledge, but you've gotten yourself this deep into the discussion and now don't feel comfortable backing out?

[rf_ucsd]

better be or im going to find everyone who voted for bush and give them noogies until theyre lobadamized!

 

I always wondered if noogies leads to balding.

Somebody: start a research study.

[babylon bebop]

lol, lucky you! i couldve voted last election, but the only choices were bush and gore, which is why i think they should make it so you can cast anti-votes, that way you wouldnt have to vote for gore if you didnt want bush and vise-versa, but then i would need 2 anti-votes because they both suck, why cant we ever have a GOOD presidental candidate? (watch al sharpton become president now)

[rf_ucsd]

lol' date=' lucky you! i couldve voted last election, but the only choices were bush and gore, which is why i think they should make it so you can cast anti-votes, that way you wouldnt have to vote for gore if you didnt want bush and vise-versa, but then i would need 2 anti-votes because they both suck, why cant we ever have a GOOD presidental candidate? (watch al sharpton become president now)[/quote']

 

Yep ... last time the choices were basically Harry or Lloyd ... where Lloyd is the smart one only because he's always standing next to Harry. What was the crazy fascination with lockboxes? I'm still uncertain whether that was a veiled metaphor alluding to sexual infertility.

 

And to think: It could have been McCain versus Bradley last election. That would have been an interesting race/national debate.

[Guest LiquidSky]

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us? :o

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore... But ohhh when we try to take action, before another disaster happens, the whole world is against us :o that is kinda shocking, but the true is that the simple word of "War" scares everybody and knowing all the facts I still don't understand why some people are against :rolleyes: I think the President Bush did the right thing...'cause if you think about it...either way he was screwed already... if he hadn't done anything, there would have been another disaster already and people would hate him for that, instead he took action and people still hate him for that...so he was screwed already...

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy, remain on our knees, humble and sumplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world. That is just not degrading but fool's bargain...3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, and our power. They hate us into incoherence. So for all you anti-Americans out there, go suck your own dicks!

 

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ...

 

Wow.[/img]

 

first post

[Guest LiquidSky]

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us? :o

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore... But ohhh when we try to take action, before another disaster happens, the whole world is against us :o that is kinda shocking, but the true is that the simple word of "War" scares everybody and knowing all the facts I still don't understand why some people are against :rolleyes: I think the President Bush did the right thing...'cause if you think about it...either way he was screwed already... if he hadn't done anything, there would have been another disaster already and people would hate him for that, instead he took action and people still hate him for that...so he was screwed already...

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy, remain on our knees, humble and sumplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world. That is just not degrading but fool's bargain...3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, and our power. They hate us into incoherence. So for all you anti-Americans out there, go suck your own dicks!

 

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ...

 

Wow.[/img]

 

What? You think I'm ignorant? :rolleyes: And if you don't get the point; I feel sorry for you. Just knowing the fact that you are older than me and for you to still don't get what I'm trying to say here it's kinda sad, don't you think?

 

No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point.

 

And your second post

[rf_ucsd]

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us? :o

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore... But ohhh when we try to take action, before another disaster happens, the whole world is against us :o that is kinda shocking, but the true is that the simple word of "War" scares everybody and knowing all the facts I still don't understand why some people are against :rolleyes: I think the President Bush did the right thing...'cause if you think about it...either way he was screwed already... if he hadn't done anything, there would have been another disaster already and people would hate him for that, instead he took action and people still hate him for that...so he was screwed already...

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy, remain on our knees, humble and sumplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world. That is just not degrading but fool's bargain...3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, and our power. They hate us into incoherence. So for all you anti-Americans out there, go suck your own dicks!

 

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ...

 

Wow.[/img]

 

first post

 

Exactly. No mention of ignorance. No mention of knowledge. No mention of anything to justify how youre feelng, so I would appreciate you not implying that I'm projecting any such things onto you because not only is it offensive but it's disappointing on a personal level.

[Guest LiquidSky]

Why was I against going to war in Iraq?

 

Why would anybody support one country going against the almost unanimous decision of the international community and acting unilaterally in support of its isolated beliefs? The U.S. did this because it felt it was in the right, but being part of an international community carries with it a responsibility to adhere to a group's decision.

 

But let's be real: The United States has never felt itself part of a community, going all the way back to the League of Nations. The Bush Administration has pulled us out of Kyoto, out of the ABM, and taken us to war in Iraq, thus undermining the UN. It's clear the United States doesn't consider itself part of any community, and if I were an EU member nation I would be reluctant to trust the United States in any endevour, be it military (see Iraq), trade (see steel tariffs), treaties (see ABM), or the environment (see Kyoto).

 

Going to Iraq wasn't about 9-1-1. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this and as of a few months ago President Bush admitted there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the towers. Because the U.S. has not been able to demonstrate an eminent treat, the decision to go to Iraq only looks good from a humanitarian perspective, justification enough to go to war were it the reason the troops were sent there.

 

LiquidSky's evokation of 9-11 as a justification for what the U.S. has done fails to acknowledge that terrorism happens all around the world: Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc. The United States is the only nation who has used this as a reason to undermine international authorities. If you argue that the U.S. can do this because of the scope of the attack (3,000 people) or the fact that it was a civilian target, I have two counterpoints: Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

 

So do I find it ironic that the whole world loved us after 9-11 and now are in conflict with us? Only in the same way that I find reason ironic.

 

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant

 

I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant:

 

"I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... "

 

I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you.

You said that you couldn't believe what I posted & made it sound that you thought I was ignorant (before) and then on the other post you said "No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point"

 

I was in disbelief about your manner, not your knowledge level. You misinterpreted that despite the fact that I said I was not concerned with the pro- or con-war stance vis a vis that particular comment of mine.

 

I really don't see where you're getting this.

Oh now you say "manner"? After saying you were commenting on how I chose to show my ignorance or knowledge and you still say " I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge" You weren't making a comment of my ignorance or knowledge, but you do comment on how I chose to show it....

 

This is incorrect bordering on lying.

 

Here is the original post quoted. I don't use the word ignorant. i don't use the word ignorance. I don't use the word knowledge:

 

"I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch(sic) you went about arguing your point(?) ... "

 

Where are you getting this stuff? Are you reacting like this because of an inner fear of being perceived as ignorant? Is a defensiveness for writing up a strong feelng that you don't feel comfortable defending or don't feel you should have to defend? Or perhaps you know that my comment didn't address ignorance or knowledge, but you've gotten yourself this deep into the discussion and now don't feel comfortable backing out?

To answer your question, No, but I do have a problem on how you say one thing and trying to act like you meant another thing and didn't say what you really said......

[Guest LiquidSky]

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us? :o

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore... But ohhh when we try to take action, before another disaster happens, the whole world is against us :o that is kinda shocking, but the true is that the simple word of "War" scares everybody and knowing all the facts I still don't understand why some people are against :rolleyes: I think the President Bush did the right thing...'cause if you think about it...either way he was screwed already... if he hadn't done anything, there would have been another disaster already and people would hate him for that, instead he took action and people still hate him for that...so he was screwed already...

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy, remain on our knees, humble and sumplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world. That is just not degrading but fool's bargain...3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, and our power. They hate us into incoherence. So for all you anti-Americans out there, go suck your own dicks!

 

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ...

 

Wow.[/img]

 

first post

 

Exactly. No mention of ignorance. No mention of knowledge. No mention of anything to justify how youre feelng, so I would appreciate you not implying that I'm projecting any such things onto you because not only is it offensive but it's disappointing on a personal level.

 

Did you read the second post?

[rf_ucsd]

To which second post are you referring?

Could you please post something where I specifically call you ignorant? Even if it's a vague allusion.

[Guest LiquidSky]

^ Just forget it, if you can't see the second post then oh well then

[rf_ucsd]

I'll forget, just please don't do this to me again unless you're a.) willing to post something to support your claim or b.) willing to just admit a mistake. It would have saved us both frustration and time.

[Guest LiquidSky]

^ Richard, it just that it bothers me (like I said before already...) that you said once thing and then trying to act like you meant another thing and didn't say what you really said.....

[rf_ucsd]

Because I never said it. That is the truth.

 

If you feel I implied you're ignorant that's one thing, and I would say you misinterpreted. If you say I actually called you ignorant then I would say you are wrong, because there is nowhere were I did (as evidenced by the posts). If you say you see where I called you ignorant I would call you a liar because there clearly is no such case.

 

So which one is it?

[rf_ucsd]

It might be best if we both just move on rather than continue to interrogate each other.

[Guest LiquidSky]

^that was exact thoughts for quite a while now :dozey:

[Sternly]

We would never agree here.

 

When I read Maya's post (Kettercat) I idmediatly thought of our own case. on 1970 we were the first cuntry to elect a Marxist President, Salvador Allende, and 3 years later, there was a 'civil war' [a 'golpe militar' really] and a dictator came to power, Augusto Pinochet. I'm not old enough to have lived there, on the 1970's, but I always ask my father and he says the atmosphere was bad; Allende had a very bad goverment, but it was all increased by the U.S.A. They blocked us, and their allies blocked us too; they worked very hard, they armed the army [they gave them more weapons], they killed the General in charge of the army (because he had socialist tendency) and they plotted, with the army, the 'goldpe de estado' [when a president is derrocated by the use of force] Life was bad, but it didn't got any better. We growth economicly, the banned dissapeared and we were suddenly a 'free country', as they said, but it was not really like that. We had a dictator, a hard one, for 18 years, and the U.S.A never said a thing, in fact, they helped him.

 

That's why I don't believe when they say that they were doing that for the people's own good [iraquis]. They derrocated Saddam, yes they did, but Iraquis still have a dictartorship, it's just the rules has change; instead of being Saddam it's the 'coalition forces' lead by the U.S.A goverment.

 

I didn't liked Saddam either. But I still think it was not the right thing to do. He had to be taken out of power, and long before I think, but what happened as just not right. I can't remember who, but someone said that If they had day said like "We made a mistake, and will try to fixed it..." and so, I would be much more supportive than I am now. The reasons they agve were lame, that's why I think this war was unjustified.

[Professor Peedston]

the U.S. government has a long history of supporting dicatorships, especially if the opposition to the dictator was backed by the USSR or had any connection with communism or socialism in any form. our government wasn't pro-democracy, they were just anti-communism, and the unfortunate result of that was that places like chile, afghanistan, and especially vietnam and korea got caught in between the US and the USSR, and neither side was really acting in the best interest of anybody living there. not to mention our government deliberately trained and funded groups like the Taliban (and, oh yeah... OSAMA BIN LADEN.)

 

as far as Iraq is concerned, it's kind of a different situation, because whereas before the US was usually acting to counter the soviets, here we just seemed to march into baghdad completely out of the blue for no real reason (or at least no reason that has any basis in the truth). i think it's pretty obvious that iraq is better out without saddam, but unfortunately, they're not much better off, because our government a) had no idea what to do once the "war" was over and 2) refuses to hand over authority to the UN, and the attacks on americans and other iraqis will not stop until that happens.

 

anyway, i haven't really read much of the rest of the thread, but i guess that's kind of my addition to the last post here and me explaining why i don't really agree with any military action the united states has taken since world war II, with the exceptions of the first gulf war and the 2001 overthrowing of the taliban.

[Hicksy]

wow guys this has turned into a fantastic discussion - please don't anyone take hurt or offense from this - discussion is productive and it's good to share views :D

[musiclover]

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us?

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore...

 

Liquid girlie, I would have to vehemently disagree with you on this one, dear. Actually, on your entire post over there.

 

Nobody said anything agains the U.S. when it attacked the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Heck, right now France and Germany are deep into Afghanistan in helping bring peace over there and rooting out the remaining Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

That was a just war.

 

The war in Iraq was for no purpose whatsoever, at least none that can be held up in moral high regard like you and mr.cool seem to be doing. :rolleyes:

 

 

And actually, there WAS no safe place against terrorism. Thank God that America at last woke up to a problem that's plagued democracies around the world. I don't want to be like 'Told you so!', but there had been many a times in the past when other countries tried to get U.S. to pay more attention to the terrorists that it was inadvertently or even knowingly funding. Now when these goons turned on America, you suddenly get a spine to tell everybody else 'With us or against us.' :angry: :rolleyes:

 

The reason why America lost the world's sympathy in less than a year after 9/11 is our Prez BUSH. He wants to play hardball with even our friends. He walks out of the Kyoto Agreement. He walks out of the treaty establishing World Criminal Court. He doesn't pay up the UN dues. He walks out of the nuke treaty with Russia. HE IS A MAVERICK and deserves the world's scorn! :angry: :angry:

 

And then, he wants another war 'cuz Afghanistan just wasn't enough for him. So he goes and 'finishes the job' that his daddy dearest left 10 years earlier. It's all the wrong reasons that we went into Baghdad. It's all well and good that Saddam is gone.

 

But don't try to give moral excuses for this war. ALL major Christian and Catholic (not to mention leaders of all other world religions) leaders were asked if this is a 'just war' in the traditional sense of the term, and all agreed that it isn't. You don't go attack someone without being attacked first. That's now how democracies operate. :rolleyes: That's how fascists and communists operate. :o

 

Trumped-up connections of WMD and of terrorists can only go so far. Not everyone is going to support such lame theories.

[weedy_gonzalez]

why' date=' can people not see the good out of it, if u cant u are truley brainwashed and blind![/quote']

 

i iz not against it. i think saddam was 1000000000 times worse than the whole war.

[musiclover]

nobody is saying saddam was good or a messiah!

 

that's totally extraneous to this issue.

 

 

the issue is why did the U.S. jump the gun on UN and went on the offensive against another country, under false pretexts, and at that particular time?

[Sternly]

the U.S. government has a long history of supporting dicatorships' date=' especially if the opposition to the dictator was backed by the USSR or had any connection with communism or socialism in any form. our government wasn't pro-democracy, they were just anti-communism, and the unfortunate result of that was that places like chile, afghanistan, and especially vietnam and korea got caught in between the US and the USSR, and neither side was really acting in the best interest of anybody living there. not to mention our government deliberately trained and funded groups like the Taliban (and, oh yeah... OSAMA BIN LADEN.[/quote']

 

Don't forget Israel! I think a very important 'issue' in all this war, and the conflict on the area, it's that he 'creation' of Israel and the conflicts that followed after, were part of the Cold War; aislated incidents.

 

I don't really now the U.S.A policies, especially inside the country, so I'll just wait for 'musiclover' to 'enlight' us here with his history lessons. :rolleyes: