Why Usa Can Get Away With Things
Dread
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
<div class="IPBDescription">that others can't?</div> Don't label me as Anti-US because of this thread. I have just observed that other nations would be heavily punished for things that USA has done. Do I smell double standards here?
Examples:
War in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't completely justified, nor accepted by other nations/UN
Treatment of PoWs. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Use of forbidden chemical weapons in Afghanistan/Iraq(I don't remember in which one). I hope someone else remembers this too and can back me up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Although the weapons weren't lethal, US had signed a treaty not to use them. It wasn't in USA's hand to decide on their usage.
Ugh...there's a lot more that I had in mind but I forgot. Add some if you like and most importantly...
discuss.
Examples:
War in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't completely justified, nor accepted by other nations/UN
Treatment of PoWs. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Use of forbidden chemical weapons in Afghanistan/Iraq(I don't remember in which one). I hope someone else remembers this too and can back me up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Although the weapons weren't lethal, US had signed a treaty not to use them. It wasn't in USA's hand to decide on their usage.
Ugh...there's a lot more that I had in mind but I forgot. Add some if you like and most importantly...
discuss.
Comments
when the UN held a resolution stating all members should uphold international law, guess which ONE NATION vetoed it.
I C B M
Or to quote from a movie:
"Mess with the best, die like the rest"
(Where best of course is a matter of view).
The reason "simply" is fear, imho.
You could also ask why there is no anarchy every time the governments in our countries raise the taxes or stuff like that...
No organisation exists to keep the US "in check" as it were. The USSR used to serve this purpose as well as the US counter-balanced the USSR. There was a balance of sorts. Now that balance gone, replaced by the victor of the Cold War, the US, as not a superpower but a hyperpower. The US can do what it does because there's no-one to stop them. How long this will remain is uncertain, but already signs such as Chinas' reluctance to support the Iraq war and the refusal of France, Germany and Russia to support that conflict as well indicates that other world powers are starting to try and balance the power of the US as best they can. Currently though the US will continue to do what the US wants to do. With the UN now effectively gone thanks to Bush, and with neither China, Russia or the EU in a position to provide much more than token opposition, the US will remain untouchable for at least the near future.
All sarcasm aside USA isn't getting away with anything, maybe the question should be phrased as such "Why USA has to do things other countries won't". If you want to talk about countries doing things other ones would never get away with look at Iraq, and Afghanistan, look at the oppression and the total disregard for international law, and when you ask the UN and foreign countries why they let it happen their response is always "We can't police the world. They are their own country, let them be.". What if that was the US response to everything "We are our own country and we do what we want, so f**k off.". Doesn't quite work the same way does it?"
The reason the recent actions take so much heat is because they put the US in a position that clear makes it a bigger and stronger country than the others, it's so un-PC to say that you are better than someone that people automatically jump all over anyone that does it. The fact is not all countries are equal, and policies should reflect this. The select few countries that have been making a huge stink about it just feel resentful because they've been shown as being a lesser power in the community. It's like going out on a date where the girl pays for everything, they aren't used to it and they get bitchy.
There is a difference between interfering with some nations internal business and interfering with nation that attacks other nations. You should realize that.
Also besides USA's aggressive policy against mid-east, it has done other things as well. Like giving a finger to the international law and breaking several treaties. USA's current government is doing stuff that their former governments didn't even dream of.
There is a difference between interfering with some nations internal business and interfering with nation that attacks other nations. You should realize that.
Also besides USA's aggressive policy against mid-east, it has done other things as well. Like giving a finger to the international law and breaking several treaties. USA's current government is doing stuff that their former governments didn't even dream of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again your generalizing, what treaties did they break, which countries wouldnt' dream of doing it?
If you are referring to France they had several billion dollars comming to them from Iraq that they won't see a penny of now, if you are talking about Russia they had a steady arms trade going with both Iran and Iraq, If you are talking about the UN they would rather sanction a country that just invaded it's neighbor because they think not being able to export or import goods is a good deterant for a dictator that just stole 300 million dollars.
Wait the US former goverments didn't do any of this stuff. Former goverments, dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilians, desrupted over 30 goverments around the world through unauthorized assissinations, prolonged a war for 20 years because they were stealing heorine from the country they were fighting, firebombed a european city during ww2 that had more casualties than heroshima and nagasaki combined. And each of those actions probably got less bad press than what is going on today.
This isn't new, this is how politics works.
My grandpa said he visited many of the cities in 1945 in Germany after ww2. All he said was it was just basically leveled.
So stop the urge of future soldiers (civilians) to fight back by bringing the war to there front show them the horror's of what can happen.
But yes I know you can easily retalliate my post but this is just one view of many.
It takes two to tango, or in this case 4. If France, Germany, and Russia wouldn't have been so stubborn, we wouldn't be in this "mess." France had lots of money coming in from Iraq, Russia was selling weapons to them, and Germany (whose population was against the war) was close to election time. So guess what position Schroeder (sp?) took? He took the easy way out and hopped on the anti war band wagon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a difference between interfering with some nations internal business and interfering with nation that attacks other nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, but I don't understand how this pertains to Afghanistan or Iraq. In Afghanistan we were there for Al Queda so we said to the local government (the Taliban) cough them up now, or get whomped. The Taliban refused so we killed three birds with one stone by scattering a terror cell, killing a few terrorists, and disbanding an Islamic Fundamentalist govt. Note: They attacked us first, which prompted Bush's policy of first strike to prevent another 9/11 (or worse) from happening.
Now, with first strike in place the U.S. wanted to take down Iraq's WMD and get rid of a brutal dictator (although sadly this was more of a side effect to disarmament.) If Iraq did get WMD, he could not launch them directly at the U.S. but at Israel or by selling it off to some terrorist group who could plant the bomb directly in the U.S. (that's bad.)
You're probably thinking to yourself "If Iraq had WMD, where are they?" I say to you, "Why was it alright when the U.N. asked for more time to find the weapons, but it isn't for the U.S. to ask for that?"
To sum it up, the U.S. can't get away with anything. If anything else, we are held under more scrutiny then any other country in the world. So....yep.
Excuse me: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAahAhahahaha.....
This is the funniest thing I've heard all day. Really.
Quick history fact:
UN has succesfully voted on 2 things during it's entire lifetime.
Both times were to go to war:
The Korean War, and The Gulf War.
Do you people just go around thinking about how much America sucks everyday? I come in here and the most common thing I see is an "America sucks!" or "America is Overrated" thread. I think Bush is abusing power and I think he sucks as a president but soon the Discussions board is going to turn into the Conspiracy Theorists board with people coming in here talking about how America is gonna take over the world and make people eat McDonalds everyday. Nobody ever talks about anything good America has done, or at least not nearly as often as I see America Sucks! threads. Stop and think about your own country and others compared to America and don't just blindly rush in and say "America abuses it's power more than any other country."
Enough of my rant, time for the stuff you've come to talk about. I don't really think America is getting away with anything. You've managed to come up with what? 3 things that America has "gotten away with" out of how many things we've been blamed for? Maybe we don't up-hold the UN law because, let's face it, they are a bunch of peace loving hippies now. They can't accept the fact that Saddam was blatently killing and gasing his own people before and was still killing his own people in large numbers after the Gulf War. They were formed to keep the peace, and for peace there HAS to be war, in an idealistic world we'd be able to get world peace without war, without some death. But that's not going to happen, there is going to be war, there is going to be death and the UN should stop dreaming and get with it. Maybe if they took some action to stop terrorism were it begins America wouldn't have to take drastic steps to do it themselves. The war in Afghanistan was a start but that's not where the war on terror begins or ends. Don't mean to be a war-monger, but you can't deny the fact that once it's started there is no way out of war other than war itself. For all you peace lovers, don't sleep on this, you probably wont be able to. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is the funniest thing I've heard all day. Really.
Quick history fact:
UN has succesfully voted on 2 things during it's entire lifetime.
Both times were to go to war:
The Korean War, and The Gulf War.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN still had some power of sorts before Bush walked over it. It did provide a system of "checks" as it were to keep all nations in balance. Now that's completly gone. I don't consider that the UN was as big a failure as you make it out to be; I think that it provided an excellent tool for negociations between nations. That also is now gone. What will replace it is anyone's guess, but I for one don't like uncertainty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It takes two to tango, or in this case 4. If France, Germany, and Russia wouldn't have been so stubborn, we wouldn't be in this "mess." France had lots of money coming in from Iraq, Russia was selling weapons to them, and Germany (whose population was against the war) was close to election time. So guess what position Schroeder (sp?) took? He took the easy way out and hopped on the anti war band wagon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now where in the UN charter does it say: "All nations must agree to support the US in all of it's foreign wars, even those that are being launched illegally, without substantial evidence to show that said nation is a threat to anyone.". France, Russia and Germany did what they thought was the right thing to do, both in their national interests and their personal views. Thanks to the Europe-bashing these nations coped from Bush, most Americans now think that these nations didn't support the war just to annoy the US. Anyone else think that the fact that 95% of the French population were against the war had something to do with their leader's refusal to back the war? Or that no convincing evidence had been submitted to the UN that showed that Saddam had WMD and was planning to use them? The nations that opposed the war (and might I add that a large majority of the world opposed the strike, not just 4 nations) didn't see a reason to invade Iraq, and they still don't because the US has found absolutly nothing to back up it's pre-war claims.
Yes it takes 2 to tango. But the differance here is that most of the world's nations opposed the strike and voted accordingly, completly within the boundaries of the UN. Bush though, instead of working with the UN and accepting the vote, did the diplomatic equivilant of giving the UN and the rest of the world the middle finger and invaded anyway. Now he's crawling back to the UN and asking them for help to govern the mess that the US created for themselves! I hope Kofi does to Bush what Bush did to Kofi: tell him to shove off. So before we start blaming this whole fiasco in the French, Germans and Russians lets look at who trampled over the UN. That's right, Bush. Everyone else acted in full accordance with the UN charter and international law. Bush is to blame for the death of the UN.
The UN for years has been a place for diplomats to spout their mouths off without ever having to live with the consequences. It's all just rhetoric to appease the people back home without getting anything done. The only thing useful it provided was a focal point for public opinion. People could be a lot more sure of their opinions if the UN was on their side. It provided an illusion of security and guidance.
The idealist in me is upset about Bush's stance on the UN, but I'm more upset about the policies themselves than about their effect on the UN. (It's worth noting I think that the Iraq war was justified by a previous UN resolution, that the original signatories are now reneging on. Just another example of why the UN is irrelevant. The resolutions are just suggestions to be followed when its expedient.)
The USA has become the biggest bully in the playground, plain and simple. Muscle and size lets you get away with a lot of things. We pretty much destroyed the U.N., we're hurting NATO, we're moving back to Isolationism.
Ryo-Ohki already said the points I was gonna make.
Now, the US is seen as unreasonable in rejecting the UN resolution against it, yet the French practically promised to veto any resolution accepting war. Doesnt really sound reasonable to me. America is a superpower, and other nations are now trying to balance it out. And they will do that in any arena they can, including the UN. Thus I laugh at suggestions that the French/Germans/Chinese honestly care about the poor Iraqi civilians. They opposed that simply to oppose the US, nothing else.
Reverse the situations here, and France/Germany would tell the UN to get lost if they saw it in their own best interest.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the differance here is that most of the world's nations opposed the strike and voted accordingly, completly within the boundaries of the UN.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They just happened to luck in this time and be on the right side of the Law in opposing the US. I dont believe the US trampled on the UN, I dont believe those who pretend that the UN worked just fine until Bush came along. I believe the Americans merely showed the UN for the fiasco it was. If Australia was ever attacked and taken over (extremely unlikely I know, despite the paranioa about Indonesia, curse you John Marsden) I know for a fact that the UN wouldnt lift a finger. Because somewhere out there in the security council, some diplomat would decide that it was in his nations best interest to see us occupied, would veto any military backlash against the opposing force, and we'd be screwed.
I would hold more hope for support from the US then the UN.
does terrorism begin with some individuals getting togeather and deciding that they dont like the way the world is pretty much governered by a small ellite, or does terrorism begin where that 'ellite' drains the wealth from the terrorists homeland, or funds a coup of that terrorists governemt, or drop bombs on that terrorists city... etc...
now, the ellite isnt only America, before you say im being anti- american again, its alot of countries, including the UK, but most of my knowledge is of Americas 'evil' acts, so that what im going to mostly talk about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I'm fairly sure it was India in the Marden series. India has been an aircraft carrier navy for some time, whereas Indonesia has no such capacities. Also Indonesia has no naval transport capabilities. That's beside the point.
The UN would quite likely intercede unless it was China doing the invading. I will admit that the Security Council is flawed in that one member with a permenant seat can veto the opinions of everyone else (I will note though that the US has blocked heaps of UN resolutions against Israel). I just don't like to see the one hope for a neutral world diplomatic body cast aside. Also there's no proof that the US would help Australia out in the face of an invasion, I know we have treaties, but there's no more proof that the US would come than the UN would come. Circular arguement here that can only be decided by Australia being actually invaded. Lets just agree to disagree.
What the Iraq invasion has done is set a dangerous precedent. Now any nation can invade any other country with no more reason than "Oh, they're an evil regime" or "They have weapons that they will use against us". Indeed, Osama Bin Laden's war against America has been legitimised by the Iraq war. The US government calls Saddam evil, Osama calls the US evil. Who is correct? If one is correct, the other is as well. Osama even has plenty of proof: the US governments kills it's own citizens, engages in illegal invasions of sovereign nations, taxes many members of it's population far beyond their means, and is ruled by a man who was not democratically elected! Sounds like an "evil" regime to me. Hence if Bush's invasion of Iraq is justified because Saddam was "evil", Osamas' war against the US is legitimate as well. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for mentioning this but this is how I see the situation.
Be aware that using non-sequiturs or ad hoc and rhetoric statements only serves to debunk the rest of your arguments or opinions. I understand that you are trying to express great significance to your points but that is not the way to add weight to your thoughts.
It's also ok to have an opinion that isn't necesarily based on fact. But, drifting into the land of make believe tends to push people away from taking you seriously.
Well I take it you believe that the war on Iraq was justified. Give reasons. If you believe it was justified because Saddam was "evil", then it is you who are in the land of make believe without facts. If you believe it was justified because Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the US, then again, you have no facts to back that up. The facts ARE that no weapons have been found nor any links to terrorist groups. I don't take the view that the war on Iraq was justified seriously. Take my views on Osama's war as you will, but unless you have proof for your arguement that the invasion was justified, it is no more a legitimate arguement than yours.
Yay, sounds like fun! But no, I'm not some super patriot saying that America pwns the world, because Bush just sucks, and I'm Republican. Just had to vent my anger at the amount of anti-America thread lately. Thank god we have the elections coming up soon (though I can't vote <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) so we might be able to get rid of him and the bad image that America has gotten lately. Though I think he already has a vast majority of America "brainwashed" to think he is a patriotic hero who is trying to save America from the communists and terrorists. (ahh, the 80's)
Face it, we get away with the little amount we do get away with because will stomp all over any other country that opposes us. Sadly, that is "our" policy and it's a damn bad one.
And about the WMD. I'm sick of hearing the BS about how America can't find them and that they must not be there. Get real, Saddam did have WMD, you forget that Saddam has avoided the UN inspections for 10 years, you'd think he'd get used to buring, destroying, and hiding his weapons. We don't find them in 3 months and we get people yelling "Liars!" while the UN has managed to f**k this up for 10 years. What proof do you have that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's? Please give us your side of the story with facts instead of just <i>saying</i> he didn't have any.
BTW, you must not have much regard for human life, Ryo, if you don't think a man that kills 10,000 people and buries their bodies in mass graves isn't evil. Or if a man who gasses his own people isn't evil. We have the videos to prove this so you can't say it's not true. The proof is there.
And finally, Melatonin, I wan't calling anybody "anti-American" and if you are then I'm fine with that. You have a right to your own opinion. I know I came across on my last post as an America lover but please don't put words in my mouth, I called no one anti-American and I wouldn't unless you openly came out and said America sucks. And yes, it's a pity that the media seems obsessed with the "evil" things that the western world does. Maybe this is the root of terrorism, the cynical newspapers out there making up lies about America, the UK, and most of Europe in general.
Y'know, sometimes I don't think people ever notice my posts. The war in Iraq was justified under the last resolution on Iraq which stated that in order to be in compliance, Saddam had to produce proof that he had destroyed his weapons program. Saddam decided to hedge his bets and claimed to have none without showing how he got rid of them. The US called his bluff, and now we are finding out that it may not have been a bluff.
I thought in USA, justice being it's middle name, criminals didn't have to prove that they are not guilty but the prosecutor has to give the evidence. In this case, there wasn't enough evidence.
And this thread is not Anti-USA like you seem to believe. Am I anti-usa if I ask why USA can brake geneva convention and bunch of others by treating pows like it does? They can't even defend themselves and that's right against your constitution! Bush administration is breaking your own god damn constitution and Washington and Lincoln must be rolling in their graves for that. No one seems to care! And don't say everyone else does it because other UN nations that signed the treaties don't do that.
The land of the free indeed. Fair trial for everyone my arse. Standing behind the treaties and pacts made...right untill it gets unconvenient. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
And don't get me started about other stuff <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Saddam submitted an 11,000 page document detailing what he did. He then allowed UN weapon inspectors to go <i>anywhere</i> in Iraq, and they did. How exactly do you prove that you don't have something? The fact that the US chose to believe that the documents provided were fradulent and that the weapon inspectors would never find the "hidden weapons" does not change the fact that Saddam was doing everything the UN was telling him to do.
Now the thing is, that if no weapons are found and instead they seem to have all been destroyed then Saddam <i>was</i> in compliance with the UN resolution. Ergo, the US invasion was illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW, you must not have much regard for human life, Ryo, if you don't think a man that kills 10,000 people and buries their bodies in mass graves isn't evil. Or if a man who gasses his own people isn't evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You want to call Saddam evil, go ahead. Heck, I reckon he was a bad man. But that's not a reason to invade another country. Also, I believe much of what Bush has done is evil. Terms like evil are all based on personal viewpoints and opinions. Doesn't change the fact that it's not a legitimate reason to wage war and it was not the reason given to justify the war in Iraq.
Oh come on, no one was satisfied by that thing. That's just monday morning quarterbacking.
Anyways, I think this discussion would be a lot more fruitful if we focused on the POW camps since that seems to me to be more blatently an abuse of American power. There is already a thread on Iraq, and I posted pretty much the same comment if you would like to take it up in there.
Well, that's so obvious that no one can actually say anything on USA's behalf on that thing. Nothing concrete at least.
Though I'd like to see someone trying <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Is jammer back yet? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Is jammer back yet? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think not. He would've been all over this thread the moment I posted it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> It's kind of slow here without him.
How are you informed that the POW's at Guantanimo Bay (I'm assuming thats what you'r talking about) are treated? In other words, how do you <i>think</i> they are treated?
Are they humiliated on telivision with interrogations? Because I don't remember seeing anything like that. I watch sky news on satalite, which is a brittish network and I saw nothing like that there either.
Please elaborate on that, because without any evidence to support what you are saying I don't know what it is that you think is being done to them.
However that's not even bad. The worst part is that they don't have the right to defend themselves, right to a lawyer and they are not even told what they are being charged of. That's downright illegal, against your own consitution, against geneva convention and every single human rights treaty.
Trying to google with as imaginative combination as "Guantanamo bay pows" gave almost 6000 replies. Let's try a few of them. Some links are very biased but just check them out:
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html' target='_blank'>Linky</a>
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo.cfm' target='_blank'>another one</a>
<a href='http://www.captaingeraldcoffee.net/POWs%20IN%20GUANTANAMO%20BAY.htm' target='_blank'>clicky</a>
<a href='http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_02/national_news/13169-1.html' target='_blank'>linkeeee</a>
<a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/pows-m31.shtml' target='_blank'>about dat australian d00d</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2002/inside_camp_xray/default.stm' target='_blank'>getting bored? Let's try camp x-ray for a change</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1771816.stm' target='_blank'>Is it summercamp? Is it fat-camp? No, it's camp x-ray!</a>
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s836988.htm' target='_blank'>Let's get together and feel all right!</a>
So they are illegal combatants and therefore shouldn't have any human rights? Holy-doublestandards-batman. Who was whining when USA soldiers were held in Iraq? Because war was never declared, USA soldiers shouldn't have any human rights either, right?
I'm getting frustrated.
Edit: /sarcasm.