What Do You Suggest We Do?

I still hold that somebody has to "police" the world, but that is irrelevent. So, what should we do? Just let all the psycho nations like Somalia and Iran run free? There seems to be a whole lot of negative criticism of how we handle things, but no constructive criticism.

So WHY is what America does wrong? How should we handle these threats? Mainly, tell me what we can do better, not what we are doing wrong.

I have to agree with you that it makes sense to put potentially dangerous nations down. I'm glad the U.S. has eliminated Saddam, as he would be a potential threat to Europe if he had managed to get hold of nuclear weapons. I'm also glad the U.S. will take care of Iran if needed.

I can't say I care much for the peoples' freedom down there nor the deaths of the Americans, Europeans and natives from the invaded nation, though; what matters to me is that no missiles hit anywhere close to me. Besides, the wars add something to follow through media, and are put into video games, movies and cool stuff like that.

Don't take this the wrong way or anything King. But that's possibly the most dickish thing i've ever heard in my life. But I suppose that's what you were going for.

Who the hell would bomb a neutral country?

But to answer the original question... That's a complicated answer right there.

Why is what america is doing wrong? Because it forces a viewpoint/lifestyle on to the nation in question. Wether for better or for worse is a subjective opinion. Now you could argue that the death squads in Bosnia was immoral and needed to be stopped, I'd have to agree with you on that one... but for one reason or another people don't like the US to get involved.

My Nihlistic approach to wars in between other countries is to let the dumbasses bomb each other..they've been doing it in the middle east for SO long before US involvment..it's a shame the US had to stop it.

How should we handle these threats? They're not really a world threat until they have nuclear capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

Now about Iran...I could careless if they have nuclear weapons or not, in fact I hope they get some. Isreal has far too many, compared to pakistan. Give some to Taiwan too, just to get china to back off from them.

But what the hell do I know... My opinion holds no water in these types of conversations, I'm not on the side of the fence that controls the outcome of worldly matters...Ask the World Bank. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geves

Who the hell would bomb a neutral country?

[/b]

---

Fanatical Muslims?

BTW you brought up a good topic. Taiwan. I think China's lust for Taiwan will draw us into WW3. If China invades, will we respond?

Lets imagine the globe as a country for a moment
The parilament, the senate, the governing body
surely that is not America
Surely that is the United Nations
surely the Untied Nations provides us with an almost "global democracy", I see the US policing the world as a "Global Dictatorship" under a blanket of democracy.

What we need to do, is pledge far more troops to the United Nations, change the way that deiscisons ar emade, remove the veto powers from the Security Council, add a couple of African, South American coutnries. Lets turn this globe into a democracy for real. A world police is needed, the United Nations, but currently their greatest threat is the United States, ignoring there resolutions, rampaging around the globe, playing God.

We need a stronger, fairer, Untied Nations, and we MUST alow the ICC more powers. The internationl criminal court, is basically powerless, due to the United States.
The ICC must become un-contestable


Imran

Are you suggesting that the US needs more troops placed around the world? Because the US has far more troop placement than any other nation. (Bosnia and general eastern europe, Korean border, Middle East spring to mind) If anything the US needs less troop placement. There's a presence of US troops in ALOT of countries.

Last I checked the UN was good for nothing but talking and trade sanctions. Why give do-nothings more power?

I understand that the US has an unbalanced amount of power in the UN. But that's what happens when you're the only country willing to provide a decent amount of troops to nations in need.

And I'm sure african/south american countries are invited to join the UN.

I do suggest you read up regarding the structure of the United Nations
Most south american and african countries are members
i was reffering to the security council, the only section of the United Nations that does anything
the General Assebly has no pwoers at all, just non-binding suggestions

I am not saying the US should place more troops, i am claiming that we should add to the countries i tnhe secutiy council, and select them via a fairer process, i never said nefing about the US placing mroe troops, troops should not be employed abroad under a single coutnries banner, they must be placed through the United Nations, a fair and blanced United Nations, a truly democractic Untied Nations
and western eladers who go against the United Nations should be asnwerable to the ICC

Which I see you chose to ignore

Imran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

I see the US policing the world as a "Global Dictatorship" under a blanket of democracy.
[/b]

---

Huh? Who is the dictator? Will he still be in office after his term runs out? Wait, dictators don't have terms. So what countries are under the complete rule this dictator who single handedly rules each country entirely?

If America was a good world police, they would have invaded darfur. If preventing genocide is not on a police-officers priority list, or at least not higher then fighting a (also bad) 'terrorist-regime', please explain why.

EDITED: Because my reading comprehension is not up to snuff :yumdumdoodledum:

I thought he said Derfuhrer my first quick read through ><

Sorry about that, Neruo...

thank god no one quoted me on that one :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

If America was a good world police, they would have invaded darfur. If preventing genocide is not on a police-officers priority list, or at least not higher then fighting a (also bad) &#39;terrorist-regime&#39;, please explain why.
[/b]

---

Because Holland would protest against it. Don&#39;t mess with Holland&#33;

Really, every U.S. decision to go to war is based on a list of reasons. Darfur has a humanitarian problem like Iraq did under the Hussein regime, but Iraq was about many, many things, such as what we saw as a major threat of WMD terrorism resulting directly or indirectly from a severe enemy that had previously engaged in mindless WMD terrorism. The Iraq list was a whole lot longer than the Darfur list. I still think we should go in there and change the government. I think a union of nations should be formed and liberate every country that is not free. If all of the free nations of the world were interested in a free world, we could have one really soon. Think about that.

So, Neruo, do you think the United States should invade Darfur?

Actually, I don&#39;t know. Do you really think a new government would better things? However, If America was going to invade ANY country, I would rather have it to be Darfur. Some sick shit is going on there, way worse then what Saddam was doing at the time you invaded him. It just again proves that America isn&#39;t about liberation, it is about self-preservation. Your main reason to invade Iraq was because you were scared by people like Cheney that said "We are absolutely sure that Saddam has WMDs".

And universal: do you really think invading countries with force works? Where has it worked? Unless there already is Major resistance against the &#39;bad&#39; regime, then it might work. And even then, in most cases, the resistance becomes the tyrants. Seriously, for instance, lets say you invade darfur, and stop the genocide. Are you going to kill every person that wants to kill some other person because of ethnics/religion? You can&#39;t just change People with invading a country with force. Changing people takes dozens of years, and brute force and (more) oppression really isn&#39;t the most efficient way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Actually, I don&#39;t know. Do you really think a new government would better things? However, If America was going to invade ANY country, I would rather have it to be Darfur. Some sick shit is going on there, way worse then what Saddam was doing at the time you invaded him. It just again proves that America isn&#39;t about liberation, it is about self-preservation. Your main reason to invade Iraq was because you were scared by people like Cheney that said "We are absolutely sure that Saddam has WMDs".

And universal: do you really think invading countries with force works? Where has it worked? Unless there already is Major resistance against the &#39;bad&#39; regime, then it might work. And even then, in most cases, the resistance becomes the tyrants. Seriously, for instance, lets say you invade darfur, and stop the genocide. Are you going to kill every person that wants to kill some other person because of ethnics/religion? You can&#39;t just change People with invading a country with force. Changing people takes dozens of years, and brute force and (more) oppression really isn&#39;t the most efficient way.
[/b]

---

Maybe we could just send them flowers and put on a love concert. But then again, brute force did change things in Europe in the 40&#39;s, and the 90&#39;s. My government needs a good list of reasons for something like that though. War is serious stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

Maybe we could just send them flowers and put on a love concert. But then again, brute force did change things in Europe in the 40&#39;s, and the 90&#39;s. My government needs a good list of reasons for something like that though. War is serious stuff.
[/b]

---

OOPS&#33; THEY LOST THE GOOD LIST OF REASONS TO INVADE IRAQ :D

Also, Germany declared war to YOU if I am not mistaken, the second world war was WAY different from Iraq or Vietnam. Also, mid 90s? You mean Bosnia or Croatia or what was it? Is that a cheerful place now?

Also, taking away the reason there is hate or other bad things is a bit more easy then giving them more reasons to hate, like by trowing napalm on their Children. Unless you agree with Israel&#39;s brute-force and oppression way of &#39;keeping peace&#39; in land that isn&#39;t even theirs.

The Isrealis have conquered it, so it is theirs now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King

The Isrealis have conquered it, so it is theirs now.
[/b]

---

I hope so increadably much that you are joking.

The only reason isreal has even a slight bit of control in that region is because the US has pampered them with trillions of dollars, jets, bombs, intelligence, the list goes on and on.

and how were they thanked?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

thanks isreal :mad:

I&#39;m not racist towards them..I just greatly HATE the way they conduct opperations. They basicly answer to no one and get all the perks of being in a alliance, with nothing given in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

I hope so increadably much that you are joking.
[/b]

---

I&#39;m not joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

OOPS&#33; THEY LOST THE GOOD LIST OF REASONS TO INVADE IRAQ :D

Also, Germany declared war to YOU if I am not mistaken, the second world war was WAY different from Iraq or Vietnam. Also, mid 90s? You mean Bosnia or Croatia or what was it? Is that a cheerful place now?

Also, taking away the reason there is hate or other bad things is a bit more easy then giving them more reasons to hate, like by trowing napalm on their Children. Unless you agree with Israel&#39;s brute-force and oppression way of &#39;keeping peace&#39; in land that isn&#39;t even theirs.
[/b]

---

I&#39;m not quite sure what all of that was about, but I still say that brute force has never freed anybody. Bosnia and Croatia are not free, and their recent freedom could not lead to a much better future. I do agree that we should be so concerned with taking away other nations&#39; reasons to hate us. It&#39;s all about what THEY want. We should let oppressive dictators do as they damn well please. Please keep taking up for the people who actually do target children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

I&#39;m not quite sure what all of that was about, but I still say that brute force has never freed anybody. Bosnia and Croatia are not free, and their recent freedom could not lead to a much better future. I do agree that we should be so concerned with taking away other nations&#39; reasons to hate us. It&#39;s all about what THEY want. We should let oppressive dictators do as they damn well please. Please keep taking up for the people who actually do target children.
[/b]

---

Target children in what way? Attack targets or potential cannon-fodder targets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Target children in what way? Attack targets or potential cannon-fodder targets?
[/b]

---

They use children for both. The PLO, Al Qaeda, North Vietnam, and lots of other terrible organizations/nations have used children as suicide bombers. There are actually camps in the Middle East where children are raised from birth to be suicide bombers. Pretty evil, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

They use children for both. The PLO, Al Qaeda, North Vietnam, and lots of other terrible organizations/nations have used children as suicide bombers. There are actually camps in the Middle East where children are raised from birth to be suicide bombers. Pretty evil, huh?[/b]

---

There are actually more children killed by American &#39;collateral damage&#39; over the years then suicide-bomb-children blew themselves up.

Pretty evil, huh? Oh no&#33; An emotionally-not-rationally-based argument&#33;

-

Seriously, what a lame argument. Boo-Hoo they let children blow themselves up. Really bad indeed, but what to do? So lets bombs their parents, that will make them stop, right? Also, dozens of dictators still reign, and have reigned for years. I still don&#39;t see why America doesn&#39;t like to help Africa. Maybe because the American government have no oil to gain or political interest in those dictators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

There are actually more children killed by American &#39;collateral damage&#39; over the years then suicide-bomb-children blew themselves up.

Pretty evil, huh? Oh no&#33; An emotionally-not-rationally-based argument&#33;

-

Seriously, what a lame argument. Boo-Hoo they let children blow themselves up. Really bad indeed, but what to do? So lets bombs their parents, that will make them stop, right? Also, dozens of dictators still reign, and have reigned for years. I still don&#39;t see why America doesn&#39;t like to help Africa. Maybe because the American government have no oil to gain or political interest in those dictators?[/b]

---

Oh, in the process of freeing nations and protecting other ones from conquesting dictators and such, there is collateral damage. Well then, it&#39;s okay if the villains you take up for deliberately send little children out to die. Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Boo-Hoo they let children blow themselves up.[/b]

---

That is such an excellent argument. Do you care if I market a poster with that statement on it and sell it in Iran and Syria? I think they would love your comment. Maybe Al Qaeda could buy the trademark from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

Oh, in the process of freeing nations and protecting other ones from conquesting dictators and such, there is collateral damage. Well then, it&#39;s okay if the villains you take up for deliberately send little children out to die. Good point.[/b]

---

I am sorry, www.thecountriesamericafreed.com doesn&#39;t exist :"(

Quote:

---

That is such an excellent argument. Do you care if I market a poster with that statement on it and sell it in Iran and Syria? I think they would love your comment. Maybe Al Qaeda could buy the trademark from me.[/b]

---

Al Quada doesn&#39;t need to do it, the Fox-bullshit you watch daily advertises everyone from the middle-east as a sick baby killer already&#33; : ) Good thing we have America, to kill thousands of civilians and start civil wars and torture innocent people and ignore their own constitution... wait a minute, isn&#39;t America supposed to be the good guy? No wait, America sucks just as hard as Saddam or Castro or whoever you want to kill.

Now thats not fair, neuro. At least half the country wants out of Iraq, and the average citizen doesnt torture anybody. Public opinion is all that matters, and we will ridicule anybody who supresses rights. Look what we did to Bush jr.

Fox news isnt that bad, or at least no more bias than any other network.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker portrayed us pretty well on South Park.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=701

explains America better than i can, plus its funny.