Politics America and the Iran nuclear issue

[cinders]

noggi for once , please stop trying to be controversial!!

there is not one superpower, look at china!!! it could annihilate the U.S.

and if it was getting rid of Sadaam you were after, there are worse dictators, whys tart with Iran if not for oil
?


and please AMERICA , i'll get on my knees and beg you go back to being isolationist, please, stop the river of blood you keep creating.

America cant dictate to the world, we all live independantly, yes we can help, but look how grateful for the americans the iraqis are!! theyre not!! yes the propaganda might show it, but look at the killing sof innocents, the rise in suicides, most still dont have electricity!!!

I'm sorry if you're gonna make it out like America is some sort or heroic country helping poor vulnerable countries, I wont buy it!!

 

[noggi16]

Its got nothing to do with being contraversial. Its as legimate to support close ties with the Americans as it is to support close ties with the French.

there is not one superpower, look at china!!! it could annihilate the U.S.

Yeah but there not going to. Even if they could, America could have a damn good go back. This isn't about superpower versus superpower, because the world is much more globalised and that will suit China and America..

and please AMERICA , i'll get on my knees and beg you  go back to being isolationist, please, stop the river of blood you keep creating.

America cant dictate to the world, we all live independantly, yes we can help, but look how grateful for the americans the iraqis are!! theyre not!! yes the propaganda might show it, but look at the killing sof innocents, the rise in suicides, most still dont have electricity!!!

So hypothetically, Americans go back into isolation. Unfetted China invades Taiwan, North Korea does whatever it wants. Ukraine and Geogia have no fair elections and no peaceful revolutions. The Syrians stay in Lebanon. The Balkans descend back into civil war again. Last time the EU couldn't decide which side it would be on. So france picked one, we picked another. The Russian join in on one side. Uhm sounds like world war one. All over again.

It could quite easily happen. And whose going to do anything about it?? The Chinese? The EU?? The UN?? who are just standing by and letting people die in Sudan like they did at Sbrenica or Rwanda.

So yeah go back into isolation. I'm sure the world will be much better off.

 

[Jamison]

Just because the US is a super power doesn't mean we should dictate how other countries run their government.

Sure if there's a threat we'll intervene (or even if there isn't a threat...as has been shown in the past). But it's getting ridiculous.

Maybe you guys would understand if you lived over here. All too often we worry about other countries (ie Iraq), and not our own.

I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye to the plights of other countries. I think that we do have the power to invoke some change. But it's sad when we have thousands of people without health insurance or food or housing in our own country and all we can seem to worry about is other countries.

 

[xdancer]

I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye to the plights of other countries.  I think that we do have the power to invoke some change.  But it's sad when we have thousands of people without health insurance or food or housing in our own country and all we can seem to worry about is other countries.

[post="1277268"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

can we not worry about both at the same time? can we not say, "over 20,000 people died yesterday due to extreme poverty. a few were americans, some were indians, more were africans. it's unacceptable no matter the nationality." can we not say "it's unacceptable that people are not free. it's unacceptable that people aren't granted civil liberties, and that includes americans." why do we have to think about one to the exclusion of the other.

i don't think we should dictate how other countries run their government, but don't we have a duty as one of, if not the only superpower left to encourage freedom and democratic governments. i'm not saying militarily, but through other means. i know it's hard to find the answers, but shouldn't we try?

 

[Natalia]

I think the US can think about both. What I object to is the attitude so often projected that 'the rest of us should just do as Mr Bush tells us because he knows better and so there.' Or that we should always trust the US government to do the right thing and never question it because we don't know what's good for us.

For example, in our federal elections last year, Bush recorded a video telling us Aussies who to vote for. :angry:

 

[Jamison]

I most definitely think we should/could do both. And I do disagree going in places militarily for no purpose.

I just have a problem with the US having so many issues within it's own borders that we don't try and clean up. It would be lovely for our government to try and fix those issues while dealing with the issues of other countries...but it doesn't seem it works like that.

I'm definitely all for supporting other countries in their time of need, no question about it. But, it does become an issue the government is taking away help over here and putting it someplace else.

 

[noggi16]

If you put it in perspective though, sure America has issues with poverty and other social problems. But even the poorest American has so much more than the average African.

Britain has social problems, we have a NHS thats not perfect and an education system thats not perfect but its there. Its free. Thats why we should do everything to help the rest of the world because its good here.

 

[Jamison]

I know there are things that are a lot worse in other countries, and we should do everything to help them.

But all I'm trying to say is that our focus all too often goes to help other countries while forgetting about our own. Or the world expects us to do so much for the world, forgetting that the US has it's own citizens who need help as well.

We should help other countries, and we're able to. But the government shouldn't put it's citizens on the backburner to help other countries.

 

[Natalia]

This article isn't exactly about the topic, but I found it interesting.

Rice Alarms Reformist Arabs with Stability Remarks

Tue Mar 29, 7:36 AM ET  Politics - Reuters


By Jonathan Wright

CAIRO (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has alarmed many reformist Arabs with comments suggesting a new U.S. approach that promotes rapid political change without regard for internal stability.

 

Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for "freedom" without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.


A liberal Arab diplomat, who asked not to be named, said: "They seem to be supporting chaos and instability as a pretext for bringing democracy. But people would rather live under undemocratic rule than in the chaotic atmosphere of Iraq, for example, which the Americans tout as a model."


U.S. policy in the Middle East has traditionally given priority to the stability of cooperative governments such as those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, while turning a blind eye to the way those governments treat their peoples.


Mohamed el-Sayed Said, a liberal who has challenged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to his face over authoritarian government, said Arab societies were too fragile for the kind of rapid and unchecked change that Rice appears to welcome.


Apart from the danger of extremists coming to power, the Arab world would face the threat that societies and states could collapse completely, he told Reuters.


"We can hardly take the great risks that Dr Rice suggests. We are determined to keep domestic peace as well as external peace as far as we can, but not to the point of stifling change," added Said, who is deputy director of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.


"TOTALLY CAVALIER ATTITUDE"


The Bush administration has argued that political violence and hostility to the United States in the Middle East are the result of internal repression, rather than of U.S. policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main Arab grievance.


That argument is at the core of President Bush's campaign for domestic political change in Arab countries, which has had a mixed reception even among Arab liberals.


His campaign has stimulated the debate on reform in the Middle East and emboldened some democrats to challenge governments which now appear to be on the defensive.


Rice's remarks went one step further, suggesting the United States was willing to take a gamble on "democratic institutions" having a "moderating influence" in the region.


Helena Cobban, a writer on Middle East affairs based in the United States, said: "She (Rice) reveals a totally cavalier attitude to the whole non-trivial concept of social-political stability in Middle Eastern countries."


"So it looks as though Arc of Instability may now actually be the goal of U.S. policy, rather than its diagnosis of an existing problem," she added.

 

[noggi16]

I think that article is very biased. I don't think the "arc of instability" is likely.

Its a big generalisation to say people would live in an undemocratic society rather than an unstable one.

Crime is probably lower in some of these countries than it is in the UK or the USA but you don't see us burning down our democratic institutions just so we don't get mugged.

Democracy is worth more than that.

 

[cinders]

Its got nothing to do with being contraversial. Its as legimate to support close ties with the Americans as it is to support close ties with the French.


QUOTE
there is not one superpower, look at china!!! it could annihilate the U.S.



Yeah but there not going to. Even if they could, America could have a damn good go back. This isn't about superpower versus superpower, because the world is much more globalised and that will suit China and America..


QUOTE
and please AMERICA , i'll get on my knees and beg you  go back to being isolationist, please, stop the river of blood you keep creating.

America cant dictate to the world, we all live independantly, yes we can help, but look how grateful for the americans the iraqis are!! theyre not!! yes the propaganda might show it, but look at the killing sof innocents, the rise in suicides, most still dont have electricity!!!



So hypothetically, Americans go back into isolation. Unfetted China invades Taiwan, North Korea does whatever it wants. Ukraine and Geogia have no fair elections and no peaceful revolutions. The Syrians stay in Lebanon. The Balkans descend back into civil war again. Last time the EU couldn't decide which side it would be on. So france picked one, we picked another. The Russian join in on one side. Uhm sounds like world war one. All over again.

It could quite easily happen. And whose going to do anything about it?? The Chinese? The EU?? The UN?? who are just standing by and letting people die in Sudan like they did at Sbrenica or Rwanda.

So yeah go back into isolation. I'm sure the world will be much better off

yeh sounds like a good scenario, to me, its a good theoury, but wouldnt happen. come on, you cant honestly say,. not even you, that it wouldnt be a good thing to have an isolationist america. They're destroying the world and were letting them do it. And no it wouldnt be ww1 again, just think for once that without america interfering we might be better off...

 

[noggi16]

800,000 people died in Rwanda. 8000 died at Sbrencia. The Red Cross estimates that 300,000 people are dead in Dafur. What are the UN doing about it??

Nothing.

So who's going to stop the massacre? France? China? Germany? Don't think so. What would be better for the world. A world run under a French system? Where we sell dictators nucleur power stations that we know are capable of enriching uranium and describe Saddam Hussain as a "great man" or allegdly support the side doing the genocide.

I think the worse thing in the world would be an isolated America. It has so much military power and diplomatic sway that the world would be worse. I don't agree with everything they've done. I'd like them to go back to Somilia. I'd like anyone to go back to Somilia and help stablise the country. I'd like them to put Zimbabwe under real pressure. I'd like them to start doing something in Burma. But at the end of the day they can't do it alone. We don't have a big enough army to do much.

September 11th is always described as a defining day and it was. It was a horrible day. And we could have come out of that with a cowered timid America but we didn't.

All this its made the world more unstable stuff is rubbish. I like America nearly as much as I like Britain. Their the 1st richest country in the world, we're the fourth. That gives a responsbility to the rest of the world. We cannot do nothing and let dictators gas their own people. Or starve them to death.

And we cannot do without America.

 

[Sex-Dwarf]

800,000 people died in Rwanda. 8000 died at Sbrencia. The Red Cross estimates that 300,000 people are dead in Dafur. What are the UN doing about it??

Nothing.

So who's going to stop the massacre? France? China? Germany? Don't think so. What would be better for the world. A world run under a French system? Where we sell dictators nucleur power stations that we know are capable of enriching uranium and describe Saddam Hussain as a "great man" or allegdly support the side doing the genocide.

I think the worse thing in the world would be an isolated America. It has so much military power and diplomatic sway that the world would be worse. I don't agree with everything they've done. I'd like them to go back to Somilia. I'd like anyone to go back to Somilia and help stablise the country. I'd like them to put Zimbabwe under real pressure. I'd like them to start doing something in Burma. But at the end of the day they can't do it alone. We don't have a big enough army to do much.

September 11th is always described as a defining day and it was. It was a horrible day. And we could have come out of that with a cowered timid America but we didn't.

All this its made the world more unstable stuff is rubbish. I like America nearly as much as I like Britain. Their the 1st richest country in the world, we're the fourth. That gives a responsbility to the rest of the world. We cannot do nothing and let dictators gas their own people. Or starve them to death.

And we cannot do without America.

[post="1283964"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I to some extent agree with you, its the way America is trying to impose their will that is getting peoples backs up. America was a much more respected under clinton. Yes, he made mistakes, but the one thing i admired about him was that he was willing to have dialogue first and didn't put impossible damands on nations which just were not possible. Put it this way, under the Clinton administration Isreal was forced to listen to the world community because America used its diplomatic claut to force it to do so. And there was a peace right up until the Bush administration decided to leave Israel to kill and purge terrorists ie school children and stone throwing youths! With reagrds to Sadam we had him shackled , it was the UN sanctions on Iraq that was killing it's people just as much as Sadam was.

 

[noggi16]

I liked Clinton too. But he served 8 years. He's gone.

There is encouraging signs. There might not be as much movement as we want in Isreal/Palestine but there withdrawing from some settlements. Its a start.

The consequences of sanctions were unintended i'm sure but we had to do something.

 

[Natalia]

I think that article is very biased.

It may be a bit biased, but all the US does is tour the world telling the rest of us how wonderful they and ignore the negatives (like doubling malnutrition rates for Iraqi children). There are two sides to every story, but America just expects us all to bow down to them and be thankful they are the dictators of the world. :angry:

Like I said before, Bush wants to run everything, and was even recording messages to tell us Australians who to vote for in the federal elections.

Fine, help people, but don't think you are God.

 

[AliasHombre]

Clinton was a boob at dealing with terror. We kept getting attacked again and again becasue he sat on his ass every time.

The last time this country went uber-isolationist was after WWI, and the world got Nazi Germany out of it.

 

[Jamison]

Clinton was a boob at dealing with terror.  We kept getting attacked again and again becasue he sat on his ass every time.

The last time this country went uber-isolationist was after WWI, and the world got Nazi Germany out of it.

[post="1285183"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

When exactly were we attacked by foreign terroists under Clinton?


If I remember correctly 9/11 happened under the Bush Administration. With a memo being sent titled "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack America." And in this memo, it stated about how terrorists were going to use planes to fly into buildings. Who is one of the people who read this memo (or should've read it...since it was given to her)? Condi Rice.

Maybe I'm wrong...but wasn't 2001 when Bush was in office?

 

[noggi16]

Yeah and the Guardian had its readers writing letters to Americans telling them how to vote so its not one sided.

Mainland America wasn't attacked but wasn't there an attack on the WTC andUSS cole

 

[the_alliance]

speaking about nuclear weapons, did you know that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on another sovereign nation?

so what everyone is saying is that Clinton was at fault for 9/11? well then, who was at fault for Iraq? (former CIA director for faulty intelligence or Texan cowboy for disobeying the world peacekeeping organisation also known as the UN?)

 

[Natalia]

This will probably offend, but I just heard this on something from American television and thought it was appropriate:

"Can I have some Botox so I don't look surprised when George Bush blows up the world?"