i'm not only looking at what happens in the middle east and the role of america in it right now. but the last 70 year. also do i not think that all americans are like that. because in a general sentence like americans (and many other) ther are always lots of exceptions. but it's not only what the usa government is doing it's also how the majority of the people in america look at the rest of the world. the majority think that evrything the usa does and has is the greatest in the world. and that the world "needs" the usa. i'm just getting sick of that american attitude.
but it's not only what the usa government is doing it's also how the majority of the people in america look at the rest of the world. the majority think that evrything the usa does and has is the greatest in the world. and that the world "needs" the usa. i'm just getting sick of that american attitude.
I understand what you mean by American attitude. I just look at things in proportion. For instance, you say the majority of people, yet you do not know the majority of people in America, not their views.
The American government does have a lot to answer to. You say in the last 70 years? I think you're being very polite :P. I think the American governments role since it's creation has a lot to answer for :P
yet you do not know the majority of people in America, not their views.
yet i do see who the majority voted for. wasn't it obvius that bush (jr) was a bad president after his 1st 4 year? still he got voted again. also do i c enoufg american people on the internet saying those things i just said.
You say in the last 70 years? I think you're being very polite :P. I think the American governments role since it's creation has a lot to answer for
since wich point of creation? the moment of the 1st 7 states or after a while when all 50 states had joined in? or befor the 1st states when there was no americans yet but only native americans and europeans? also was the usa a normale country like any other that didn't want to start a war or anything untill the end of WW2. being the heroes of WW2 (together whit some other countrys (russia, uk and canada)) has risen to the head of the americans. and after WW2 the usa has started 26 wars. mostly because they wanted to "help" (and be the heroes again) but they only made it worse. ofcourse if you start 26 wars in 65 years (evry 2 or 3 year a new war) that there are a few wich are justified. but all the others are not.
yet i do see who the majority voted for. wasn't it obvius that bush (jr) was a bad president after his 1st 4 year? still he got voted again. also do i c enoufg american people on the internet saying those things i just said.
Although government appeasement and manipulation needs to be taken into consideration. Candidates promise the world and never deliver. As for Bush getting voted twice - LOL. I'm with you on that. Then again, from the Americans i've spoken to, it was a case of the lesser of two evils: & they all admit now they were wrong.
As for point of creation: In this term i guess i'm speaking about when America became America and not the "New world" and comprised it's own government.
Since WW2 they have started 26 wars? I know they have been involved in many, but actually started? This is interesting? Any sources? Might just change my mind on it :P
Since WW2 they have started 26 wars? I know they have been involved in many, but actually started? This is interesting? Any sources? Might just change my mind on it :P
we talk about starting a war when 1 country starts fighting whit a military force in a other country then itself.
the usa did start those wars or started helping the weakest party of the 2(or more) partys that were in war whit eachother. by handing out weapons to them so they can keep up whit the fight and not die. wich sounds like a good thing at 1st. but it only means that the war will take longer then needed and that more people will get involved in the war.(example: lybia 2011) also do those weapons never return to america they stay whit the people that got them from the usa. meaning that if after the war there is some issue who will be the next leader that a civil war can start (it happend in atleast 3 countrys and in congo 3 times after the usa had given them weapons.)
i havn't informed myself about all the 26 wars because it takes prety long to learn what actualy happend then and there. and i used to like the story of both sides. not only the american propaganda but also the real storys of people that have been in those wars) but there is no doubt that america did invade and started fighting in other countrys then itself 26 times after WW2
here is a list of all the wars. (note that the cold war is not listed because there was no fighting in the cold war and therefor it's not a real war)
The USA is attempting to take the role of a peacekeeper, which is something the UN is notoriously bad at.
Now, I'm not saying that we're justified to enter any conflict and act as the arbiters of peace, but do you recommend letting people's own governments slaughter them indefinitely?
In Libya, the United States and Britain are not fighting the wars, rather, they're allowing the rebels to have a chance at success. Do you think that's a bad thing?
Sorry for the double post, but a lot of those wars were actually direct results of the Cold War, so to me it seems as if the Cold War should be on the list, in place of a lot of those countries.
In Libya, the United States and Britain are not fighting the wars, rather, they're allowing the rebels to have a chance at success. Do you think that's a bad thing?
the usa is not fighting because the usa was able to talk his way out of it. they were however the 1 that started bombing the place. and then basicy said. good luck europe, we started the war now you can go and fix it. we go back to that other war of ours over there. europe didn't want to get involved in that situation. and only because they are part of the UN they are in that mess now.
and yes i think it's a bad thing that the usa handed out weapons in libya. like i said befor. it only makes the war take longer. more people will get involved and more will die. and if Gaddafi is beaten (dead) then who is going to take their weapons away from them? they have just been in war. they don't just hand over their weapons and see what dictator they get next. if there are to many partys that are going to try to become leader then some of those partys can start using their weapons again. (it wouldn't be the 1st time) if the weapons were not given then that war was over by now. whit many deaths and lots of horrible things but thats just how it is then.
a lot of those wars were actually direct results of the Cold War, so to me it seems as if the Cold War should be on the list, in place of a lot of those countries.
then america should have fought whit russians not whit the people that lived in those countrys. nowhere in these wars has a group of americans and a group of russians been shooting eatch other. killing people from a compleet different country then the country whit wich you got "war" (cold war) doesn't make it more justified or beter in any way.
letting people's own governments slaughter them indefinitely
like i said. if you start 26 wars then there sure are a few that can be justified.
The USA is attempting to take the role of a peacekeeper
peace keeping by starting more wars in such a short time (65 years) then any other country has done in a very very very long time. (atleast i can't think of 1 except the roman empire maybe)
What I wanted to say is that France and Great Britain urged the USA to join, not the other way.
when the usa started bombing libya there was no plan yet from the eu or un for what to do next. and my argument was about europe. as always in a general manner are there exceptions. in this case uk and france. and maybe some more. but if europe realy wanted to start a war in libya then there was a plan and didn't we wait almost 2 weeks befor starting it.
then america should have fought whit russians not whit the people that lived in those countrys. nowhere in these wars has a group of americans and a group of russians been shooting eatch other. killing people from a compleet different country then the country whit wich you got "war" (cold war) doesn't make it more justified or beter in any way.
If you want to blame someone, blame the Russians. Most of those wars were between the USA and communist parties supported by the Russians, which were a threat to the United States.
peace keeping by starting more wars in such a short time (65 years) then any other country has done in a very very very long time. (atleast i can't think of 1 except the roman empire maybe)
What's the point of humanitarian laws and basic human rights if nobody has to keep them? The United States has become somewhat of an international police force, because we're the only ones willing to fight for other peoples rights.
when the usa started bombing libya there was no plan yet from the eu or un for what to do next. and my argument was about europe. as always in a general manner are there exceptions. in this case uk and france. and maybe some more. but if europe realy wanted to start a war in libya then there was a plan and didn't we wait almost 2 weeks befor starting it.
As far as I know, the Libyans started the Libyan Civil War.
I don't know how you mean what you're saying, but to me it sounds like you think we should sit by and allow genocide and basic rights violations to millions of people because, **** it, why not?
The war between the U.S. and the middleast is pretty much over. America finally realized that continuing this war will give no benefit and just continue to worsen it's economical situation. And about the Libyan civil war, the libyans started rebelling after seeing the example in Egypt and tried throwing the dictator out of the government. I believe it was decided by the UN that America was too send troops over to Libya to assist the rebellion in an attempt to end the dictatorship.
WTF just WTF... keep your fat American ***** home will ya. we don't expect the USA to sort it out. let them sort it out by them self. as you said you only make it worse. 1st try to get your own country on the line again. lower your crime rates and do something about the almost daily gun fights at the Mexican border. get your debt in order. go do that and let the rest of the handle their own problems.
This comment is funny as it clearly states on my profile that I am from New Zealand
the USA is not fighting because the USA was able to talk his way out of it. they were however the 1 that started bombing the place. and then basicy said. good luck europe, we started the war now you can go and fix it. we go back to that other war of ours over there.
As hojoko was saying, it was the Libyan people that started the war. The US did the right thing, and tried to help the Libyan people fight AGAINST the dictator so that they can experience FREEDOM.
Do you expect the US just to say (or any country for that matter): "Yeah, we won't support your fight for democracy/freedom because we are afraid people will hate us."
when the USA started bombing Libya there was no plan yet from the EU or UN for what to do next.
UN: Okay Libyans hold on, we will help you in a few more weeks, we just gotta' sort out a plan first. Just hold off government forces a bit longer.
What's the point of humanitarian laws and basic human rights if nobody has to keep them? The United States has become somewhat of an international police force, because we're the only ones willing to fight for other peoples rights.
Exactly. If somebody's country was under attack, the first people they think will help them is the US, yet they go and slander their name. WTF? If you are against what the US is doing (which is helping people get freedom), then you are anti any country helping people get freedom around the world. Sounds incredibly selfish to me. It's okay! We have freedom in the Netherlands no need to help other people in the world get it as well!
