America --- Really The World\'s Police??

[Honeybunnie]

This is a very interesting topic, that has been ostensibly missing from the forum. I think America\'s foreign policy is very limiting to the Arab world and to thrid world countries. America\'s self-proclaimed role as the World Police could come back and bite us in the a** especially with the way we are dealing with Korea and Iran. I will be writing extensively on this matter shortly. I just wanted to throw this out before I forget (too much going on in my head and work right now). What is your take on its role as WP, is this rightly so, and what are your arguments in favor of and against, you are free to bring in your thoughts on other countries such as China, Russia, Germany et al

[Honeybunnie]

Okay, so we went to war with Iraq, guns blazing, accusing the country of having WMD, which it turns out that they never had, and now we install democracy in that country and because of that our president is touting our role in the war as liberators. Is it just me or is this government trying to cover up the real reason that caused us to go to war in the first place? NO, they are very aware of it but still feel like the public\'s eyes can be hooded with scenes out of Iraq of people chanting praises to America.

Then again comes Iran and North Korea, who are we really to go into those countries to demand that they switch their rule to a democratic rule, why do we feel like we could pull so much weight in every country\'s affairs. Talks with North Korea have broken down, and North korea has sworn to increase its production of nuclear weapons. If push comes to shove, do we really think that we can go to war with N. Korea as well, it should be noted that it has been calculated, that a nuclear weapon fired from N Korean soil will very likely hit a key state in the US, Florida. When did America\'s democracy become the standard by which the entire world must follow. I feel that we need to allow people to rule themselves the way they want to be ruled. If they decide that they want democracy, let them ask for our help rather than for us to go in and demand that they change their way of ruling.

Our war in Iraq has added more tension to our ties with muslims around the world. We do not currently have an exit plan for the country. SO what we are doing is setting them up with their government like we have done, and then we will be moving on out and leaving them to fight the war that we started against insurgents who even recruit children to do some of their dirty work. That said, I do not think that our leaving Iraq will stabilize the country, because you have insurgents who believe that the government in power has been put in place by the West and so would do all that they can to destabilize the country. Only time will tell if the current democracy in Iraq will help the country and if the country will ever have peace.

Now we are trying to push some of our weight against Iran, I think we are threading very dangerous soil.

[Susia]

My Take on this is \" Which wan concern Agboro and overload\"

[fresco]

well, as a world power, the US has the duty of protecting every nation. As for the world policy, i agree that it is targeting the Arab countries b/c they pose more threat to freedom. We have seen Bush threatening North Korea to dismantle its nulear proliferation, and also had warned Syria about its involvement in Lebanon, which supposed to be independent nation. The climate in some Middle East countries is very chaotic and the US know that if they neglect/overlook such things, its going to backfire them.  Middle East has been harboring and nurturing terrorism and the US has to be on the offensive, by taking action to stop this terrorist networks.
      For the most part, US police in Middle East has been good. Taking Israel and Palestine for example, the US knows that the PLO has been Israel\'s adversary since the Cold War era and  even the existence of Israel as a nation. The US won\'t close its eyes on the sucide bombings taking place in Israel; it has to support and take part in restalling peace in this place. Remember that Israel has been US ally during the Cold War and till now; it has helped US secure its interests in the Middle East, and it helped US became World Power. US has to help Israel in the participation of peace talks w/ Palestine inorder not to break its relations w/ Israel. Also consider the # of Jews in the US, their votes in election are abundant; therefore their contribution in the voting is important too. how would they feel if the US did not support or help them? It is not that w/o US, Israel won\'t be able to handle Palestine b/c it has showed its military prowess through the killing of the terrorist leader, HAMAS, but Israel has to take into consideration what the other countries say, especially US.
 Talking abt Iraq...... Bush has been B.S..ing by saying that the country has WMD. This is a flaw in his adiminstration. it is understandable had he said that he wanted to liberate Iraq, which was one of the worst human rights violators.... then his policy would be to uphold Human Rights..... which is good b/c US has the history of upholding it, right from Carter\'s Adminstration.... to Kennedy\'s regime. Now BUSH calls it \"Operation free Iraq\" which was what he would have said earlier instead of WMD.
       I clearly supports his policy of stopping NK from nuclear enrichment... this is a threat to world peace and stability. it is clear that Nk is not building nuclear weapons for positive means, if so,they wouldn\'t have been bragging about. US knew how i was during the Cold War when its adversary,USSR (Russia), and it were competing for world power. Many nuclear weapons were built to fufill that and  threat grew to the extent that no other contry intervened due to the fear of being nuked. Only the nations involved, US and USSR, decided to end it because it would lead to mutual destruction..... Weapons such as A-Bomb, B52, ICBM,  warheads, Submrine missles, H-Bomb etc... are threats and NK acquiring nuclear weapons makes no nation safe
   Yes, US is policing the world and it is doing so to protect all countries.

[sly]

Fresco, I totally dsagree with u. First it is not the duty of the US to protect anybody. Secondly, the US is not policing the world to protect all countries but to serve their own selfish purpose.
Special thanks to u Honeybunnie for bringing up such and invigorating topic.
 The maintenance of world peace has never been the sole responsibility of any nation state. It is a communal amd multilateral task, of which the UN is the judge and the jury. The UN sets the pace and makes the final decision on how and when intervention is necessary for any country who breaks Intl. law or whose sovereignty has been violated.
No doubt, the US has taken it upon herself to police the world bcos of its super power status. The US mostly intervene in situations where they feel national pride is a t stake or where they got some economic interest.. The united states has been very inconsistent with its policy towards other nations. These policies are fine tuned to suit their interest.
 The US knew fully well that saddam hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The little that he ever had was given to him by the US. During the iran-iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, iraq used these weapons on their neighbors and recieved the backing of the Reagan administration, an administration composed of many of the same people who presently occupy leading positions in the Bush administration. the US govt had encouraged iraq to invade iran in 1980 and initially adopted an official position of neutrality so long as iraq had the upper hand or the two countries were bogged down in mutual blood letting. Washington was willing to let the conflict grind on, Arms sales were facilitated to both countries through third parties, even as the major powers maintained an official boycott on the sale of arms to belligerents. The US knowingly took iraq off the list of terrorist nations even iraq was habouring the world\'s most wanted terrorist.
The us viewed victory by iran as grave threat to the stability of the region and to US oil supplies. Testimony given in 1995 by former Reagan admin National security coucil staff member Howard Teicher indicated that the US following a 1982 order from the Reagan white house, made official its policy of covertly aiding iraq. I can keep going for ever, but to cut the whole story short, The US did not go to help liberia when they were in chaos after charles Taylors departure. matter of fact the american soldiers never arrived until weeks after nigerian soldiers had gone there to salvage the situation. The US also know very well not to invade north Korea in order not to let loose hell. Saddam hussein is bad because he has refused to play by our terms so therefore he got to go. THE US WITHOUT MINCING WORDS IS A WORLD BULLY. We implore so much arrogance in the way we treat other people but get offended when trated the same way. Its okay for us to abuse prisoners of war from other countries but quick to cry when when same happens to our soldiers. It is clearly double standard and thats what other people see. something aint right and thats why the US is always a target. When people like Bush can not employ diplomacy which is the best conflict resolution tecnhique in executing foreign policies then there is a grave danger. I\'m not really suprised about anything bcos its been the culture of the world. The Spanish, roman and British empires as well as germany and russia have had their own share of the spoils and history is always there for us to learn from.
HOW DO U WANT TO BE TREATED WHEN U ARE NO LONGER THERE? Be kind to people u meet on ur way up cos u might meet them on ur way down. I will gradually detail the various inconsistencies in US foreign policy in my subsequent posts as its too big a topic to discuss at one time.

[Honeybunnie]

I was going to say the same thing that sly is stating. I am not in total agreement with you Fresco, but hey we disagree to agree, and this would make for good arguments for and against.

Nobody made the US the world police. Okay you say it is okay that North Korea is stopped from making nuclear weapons, but the questions is this, who gave the US the mandate to enforce the rules on countries like N.K. Truth be told, there are forums to go about asking people to stop producing nuclear weapons. The United Nations which has the official responsibility to make those demands of different countries are just playing puppets to America\'s needs. THe UN does not even have a real say in anything, Kofi Annan is more or less one of the least powerful people in the world today.

Okay, so we kicked Saddam out of Iraq, good thing or bad, more good than bad, but what were the reason s for going in there in the first place. Since the war began and since it became clear that there was never any WMD, has the United nations made a stance against the US, has the US been punished for wrongly starting a war, no we were not, but after Iraq invaded Iran and were ultimately forced out by American forces, the Iraqi people have been subject to all kinds of sanctions. The whole world is subject to the double standard that the US is displaying, and it is a real pity that countries like Russia who would have made a strong opposition to the different actions of the US has lost most of its political clout, and countries who are still up there, e.g the United Kingdom are all playing allies to a country that their own people despise.

I have so much more to say on this, like sly said, it can\'t all be said in one day....

P.S @ Susia, this is the world that we all share, you should have a say really because when it comes down to it (war, invasions etc) we are all somehow going to feel it.

[fresco]

Talking about the UN, the UN has not been effective lately. why would the members sit there and not say anything about NK nuclear program? Since they are not doing anything about it, then somebody has to take control of the situation. Remember the purpose of the UN Charter is to maintain peace, will there be peace when country like NK is building nuclear program? Of course not. US knows that they are the next target if this program is not dismantled.  The obvious reasons being antithetical ideologies and the turn of events in 1945 to 1991 (Cold War era).  I believe the UN is moving toward the outmoded League of Nations, which demised because of it\'s ineffectuality. What is the role of a superpower or world power since it is not protect nations? Why would pple call the US to be involved in the Tsunami situation if the US could not intervene in nations to main stability? There no nation which would protect other nations w/o securing it interests. The US is doing that too i understand, and at the same time doing its duty as a superpower. There\'s also no nation that would become a superpower w/o being paranoid about the menace towards its power and that is what the US is doing about NK. Since UN can take control of what is happening in other nations, why wouldn\'t they then take ENTIRE control of the Tsunami and Darfur etc? the reason, b/c it has no money and that make US very advantageous, b/c it has money, part of what makes the it a superpower. there\'s nothing that the UN can do that will exclude the consent of the US, to show the importance of th US.
 Talking about Iran-Iraq war, there is no nation that has not been impeccable before. Iran has a history of being US foe during the Hostage Crisis, NK (already mentioned) has been US enemy during the invasion of SK (south korea) China, Russia etc. since no nation is free; therefore that sort of exnoerate the US from the Iran-Iraq war, i don\'t mean entirely.  I believe it was Saddam Hussien that sparked the offset of the Iran-Iraq war through his imperalism. Gulf War was an act of Saddam.
Back to Iraq..... There is no nation under dictatorship rule cannot call for freedom. i don\'t mean the nation itself but the pple inhibiting it. Saddam\'s regime was very repressive; there was lack of autonomy and human rights was undermined/violated. Why wouldn\'t the UN do something about it since it was their job to protect nations? Some group needs to replace the UN, and i believe the US is doing what the UN supposed to do and UN should be thankful. Bear in mind that there\'s nothing the UN can do w/o the US.
 The nations that made up of UN perhaps are cowards since they can\'t do something about what is happening lately. Russia and Germany, the two most prominent nations that opposed US invasion of Iraq now believe terror should be fought. Last time in Russia, the Chechenyan coerced the Russian school and killed many pple. Now the nation is realising that NO country is free from terrorism and it did a fantastic job by killing the mastermind (chechenyan leader).
 The US is doing a lotta good job than the UN. I still believe it is policing the world to protect people while securing its own interest cuz there\'s no nation in US position that wouldn\'t have done same thing. We have some US troops in other countries like Germany, Russia Afghan, Italy et al protecting people. In Lebanon , we saw that the nation had called the US to do something about their sovereignty. Obivously democracy is a better choice of govt than other types and we have seen in Iraq that some pple liked it, also in other places pple expressed their desire for such kind of govt. In Communist China, pple aren\'t happy about their form of govt. Russia is indirectly undermining civil liberties and tending to move towards Communist idea. We have seen recent events in Russia colonies and how the nation is moving toward hardcore communism or kinda like socialism.

[Honeybunnie]

Talking about the UN, the UN has not been effective lately. why would the members sit there and not say anything about NK nuclear program? Since they are not doing anything about it, then somebody has to take control of the situation. ....

What is the role of a superpower or world power since it is not protect nations? Why would pple call the US to be involved in the Tsunami situation if the US could not intervene in nations to main stability?

... there\'s nothing that the UN can do that will exclude the consent of the US, to show the importance of th US....
 
.....There is no nation under dictatorship rule cannot call for freedom. i don\'t mean the nation itself but the pple inhibiting it. Saddam\'s regime was very repressive; there was lack of autonomy and human rights was undermined/violated. Why wouldn\'t the UN do something about it since it was their job to protect nations? Some group needs to replace the UN, and i believe the US is doing what the UN supposed to do and UN should be thankful. Bear in mind that there\'s nothing the UN can do w/o the US.
 The nations that made up of UN perhaps are cowards since they can\'t do something about what is happening lately. Russia and Germany, the two most prominent nations that opposed US invasion of Iraq now believe terror should be fought. Last time in Russia, the Chechenyan coerced the Russian school and killed many pple. Now the nation is realising that NO country is free from terrorism and it did a fantastic job by killing the mastermind (chechenyan leader).
 

Fresco, you have spoken very well. But I still find some points in your argument that I disagree with.

THe first paragraph is a very interesting one, Why do you feel that someone has to take over the situation and bypass the use of the UN. The United Nations I agree has become a puppet of some sort to the US, but that does not mean that their role as peacemakers should be disregarded and left to the US, the United Nations was instituted for a reason and every nation in the world should play by its rules. We have seen the kind of peace that the US claims to bring, wars do not necessarily bring about peace, it actually only increases the tension between countries. The US is a superpower, and they do a good job of throwing their weight around, but I begrudge the fact that they would try to throw their weights at other countries without the uniform consent of other nations. You talked about Saddam Hussein\'s human rights violations, etc, do you know the violations that go on in Israel everyday, or maybe Saudi Arabia, but yet we remain allies of sorts with them.

I don\'t think the UN should be thankful really for anything that the US is doing, the UN needs to be reformed. The only reason that the US throws its weight around so much is that it is one of the richest countries on earth.  Truth be told, being an American is not so safe around the world anymore, especailly in the arab world, how do you explain that this \"world police\"\'s own people are so hated in places that it claims to police.

On the Russia and Germany talk, I don\'t think they could have said anything differently. We all need to fight terrorists, they do not do any good for anybody in the entire world, but how do we go about fighting them is the question. Moreover terrorist is a general term for terrorist cells or people who use violence to enforce or coerce governments into their mostly political ideologies, it is not specific to \'countries\' like North Korea or Iraq. North Korea is being asked to quit making NW, but are we fully aware that the US itslef has stopped producing the same?

[Honeybunnie]

Bush says that toppling Saddam Hussein inspired democracy, I guess we should go in and topple every other government\'s leadership that does not have democracy.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/bush.radio.ap/index.html

[Prince]

I held back on this one, reserving my comments for later, while I see what comes in.  As HoneyB indicated, this topic belongs here.  That it\'s been missing all this while, is reason enouth for serious head scratching.

At this juncture, I\'ll throw my hat in with Fresco, albeit for a different reason.  My support for the US meddling in world affairs stems from God\'s written words, in the bible.  I believe the exact words are, addressing the US and Great Britain, \"You shall be a blessing to all the world,\"  \"Blessed is he that blesses you and cursed is he that curses you,\"  \"I\'ll give you the gates of your enemies,\" and stuff like that.  I think with those words, God thrust the guardianship of the world to US and Great Britain, and as MC Hammer would say, \"U Can\'t touch this.\"

I know I\'m gonna catch a lot of heat for this one, but hey, what else is new?  I call it as I see it.  If the bible says it, I believe it, for who knows the mind of God?

Has anybody actually considered what this world would be like today, or in the future, had the Soviet Union emerged as the world\'s sole Super Power, and the US had imploded as the USSR did.  They would have attacked us (their lifelong ambition), not help as the US has done to them.  We\'d all be mining something, somewhere, in Siberia:-- coal, oil, copper, or something, in chains, I might add.  Or we would be in shackles in the rice farms of China or Japan, had either of them become the Sole Super Power.  We would fare worse in France or Germany.  Both have been jealous of the US, from the get go.  You tell me, other than the US, or maybe Britain, under whose Sole Super Power-dom could we breath easier?

All ye war buffs, when was the last time we saw a war plane drop the two Bs, Bombs and Bread, simultaneously?  When has the victor turned around to help the vanquished rebuild?  This has been America\'s legacy.  Yet, the world turns around to spit in their face.  How long ago were we shipping rice, oats, wheat, corn, scientist, doctors and all tko Russia?  Now, they despise us like a plague.  

Until the US took over the conduct of war, the custom of war was: defeat them carry off their young women to pleasure their masters, put their young men in chains to power the galleons and work the field, plunder their treasuries and loot their temples.  When done, levy heavy taxes on those left behind.  

No country or adiministration is perfect, but if you find a better one than the US, please be kind enough to let me know, so I\'ll migrate there.  Who among you thinks that America would meddle if those countries decent human rights policies and freedom of expression?

[fresco]

HB, you comments are interesting.....this discussion is so cool and that\'s why i feel the urge respond.
well, I feel that somebody or a nation has to bypass and take oversituation w/o the UN because UN is not doing its job. If the UN is not doing its job and the US remains reticence, then there won\'t be peace in the world. Nations will be attacking each other and it will take time for war to stop when it starts, even if the UN is reformed after the offset of war it will NOT be capable to end it quickly. This is evident when Israel took over the West Bank, Gaz Strip and some of the lands that Palestinians nd other arab nations felt it was theirs, the UN clearly told the Israels (mid 1960s) to evacuate and yet they didn\'t comply. The UN even issued Resolution 242, but was not Immediately accepted by the Israelis. Eventually, the Israelis did accept it not b/c of the UN alone but b/c the US pressured them. Remember, Israel was like the 51st state of the United States; its relation w/ the US was/and is still tight. This event plus other events that proceeded like the Korean War etc, the UN was not capable of settling situations like war, when it starts. I understand that the role of the UN should not be overlooked but hey, since it can\'t do anything to save the world, it might as well allow those capable of handling its job to do it, which is what the US is doing. The very good thing about the US is that they tell/warn you before they act. The don\'t just act w/o your knowledge. For instance in Iraq, the US WARNED Saddam to abdicate but he refused, thinking that it would be hard for the US to spot him and overthrow him because his military would be there, and yet, it became clear to him that the US actions were beyond his anticipation. The US also told the UN about its intent; although the UN did not give its consent, why couldn\'t they restrain the US then? only because the US is important to them. you are right that the UN has been the US puppet and the US has utilized that to its own advantage, which any nation could have done had it been in the US position.
 I agree that the US should have sought the consent of other nations/countries and that is what NATO is for. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by the western powers to support each other. This organization has been effective right from time, when the USSR formed its own WARSAW PACT, which contain nations under the umberlla of the USSR, to fight NATO. The US sought their consent and some gave the US blank cheque. Although France, Germany where under NATO umberlla and they didn\'t agree w/ the invasion of Iraq but majority carries the vote. Since the number of nations under NATO that supported the US outnumbered the nations that didn\'t, then the US went. Now we have the coalition forces in Iraq, which came from countries that deemed invasion of iraq vital, fighting to maintain peace there. To show you how ineffective the UN has been, why didn\'t the restrain the nations that contributed their forces in Iraq from supporting the US? No b/c its afraid to do so, as not to offend the US. You are right that the UN needs to be reformed but until then the US can then stop and let the UN handle any situation affecting the world. If the UN is not reforming sooner or later, then the US can handle the job it supposed to handle.
The next point you raised was War. It is true that war only exacerbate the situation more, but since it\'s the general concept, then the aspect worth looking at is what is being achieved. Initially, it wasn\'t the US intent to go to war, but Saddam prompted the US to go to war by declining to the US commands. Although Buh used the idea of war in his speech to Saddam but he used it as a THREAT. Every US prez has used the word when address pugnacious nations. LBJ (Lyndon Baines Johnson) used it when addressing the UN about giving him the green light to attack bellicose NV (north Vietnam) for their offensive at South Vietnam. Kennedy has used it when addressing US LONG time communist enemy Fidel Castro, who befriended the USSR, fighting against the US. Bush didn\'t mean to JUST start a war. War was carried out when Saddam didn\'t comply. Again, i\'m not saying that what the US used to accuse Saddam of possessing (WMD) was right....but the new idea of freedom was a better choice than WMD.
 Talking about human rights violations, you\'re right about the human right violations happening in Israel. other countries have that too. Countries especially Arab countries, you mentioned have that. Countries like China, Russia(i.e countries under the Russia/eastern european countries) have that. People in Iraq, have exposed ways Saddam exploited them and violated their rights. Some have called the US to intervene in their country while others did not. Saddam human rights violations were abundant that the US used it as a backup for the invasion. Although the US wouldn\'t say how they got their info but the means was, obviously, the CIA. The US spies have been entering in different countries exposing what situations are like.  During the unrest in Ukraine during the election period, Russia told the US not to interfere in their colony, and yet the US did because of the idea of peace. Despite the claim by Putin that the US wanted to annex the country, other countries didn\'t buy his view.  Who knows which country will be the next target..... it might be the spies have been infiltrating in these countries mentioned exposing the situations there. it was themn(spies) that exposed about NK nuclear enrichment. I believe that the US respond to nations that complain abt the violation of human rights. Israel, which is US ally, pple have not complained and if one does not complain, how will the US know.
On the talk of terrorism.... yes that aspect is diffcult to solve. lately, it is hard to determine who is a terrorist. the US is very xenophobic about pple from Arab countries.... but not all arabs are terrorist. Terrorism is something that every nation must fight. NK, pose a clear threat to the world. the nuclear program is not healthy to the world. it keeps on accumulating more and more, and its a danger. Clearly possessing nuclear weapons, a country might one day decide to nuke another country or decide to become world power by defeating nation that holds that status. the US does not want any threat to its power likewise any nation who was in US position wouldn\'t want such thing; therefore NK threat is important now. Yes, the US has nuclear weapons(mostly accumulated during the Cold War) so do other countries. Russia has weapons (followed the US thread during the Cold War), Israel and many more countries have. NK own is a threat cuz it has been building it w/o any reason. US and Russia was then; when the contested for World power. Israel was involved in the Cold too; when it fought and defeated the Arab countries such as Syria, Jordan, Egypt in Six Day WAr and Yom Kippur war of 1973. Many more countries have  nuclear weapons. NK have some also during the Cold war era but it is building more and more; non-stopping. that shows that the reason is not postive.
 

Prince, the GOD thingy..... mmm i don\'t know abt that one. i\'m not using God to explain my position. Although i believe in God but God created us to do our jobs and nations have to do their own part. You explaination makes sense but i never thought of that before.

[Prince]

Fresco, this is a discussion where the justification of America meddling in other nations\' affairs is at stake.  You and I happen to agree that We the US is justified.  We have our different reasons for our position, as I pointed out.  But the bottom line is we are on the same side.  You bring your reasons to the argument.  

Now, it would be foolish of me to repeat and or reiterate your points.  The best thing I can do for our side is bring in points not previously known to the audience.  Telling the audience what they already know, does not have an impact.  My duty as a partner is to bring in facts that would add to the points you already have.

If there is something you don\'t know, all you have to do is ask.  It\'s by asking that we acquire knowledge.  That you don\'t know it, doesn\'t make it untrue.

By the way, God did not create us to do our own thing.  He created us to serve him or do his own thing, as you put it.  We would be in trouble if we didn\'t do his thing.  And that\'s why people are scampering for salvation.

[Honeybunnie]

OKay, I\'ll first of all give my thoughts on Prince\'s comments. I see that you are thinking along the same line as Fresco, and you believe that if the US doesn\'t man the world, the entire world would degenerate into some sort of world war. I really do not think that that is the case.

The only reason the US attacks anyone is when their agendas or when their interests are under attackor is at stake. If the US is such a righteous nation that they should be given the job of keeping the world safe, why have they not thrown their weights on the wars in AFrica, millions have died in Sudan and continue to die everyday, has the US sent its troups out there to keep the peace if they are so intent on policing and keeping world peace....NO, There has been a war raging in Liberia, a country that was founded by American slaves, has the US even tried to say something on that war, NO, who does that instead, the United Nations, they have their troups out there protecting children, and trying to feed the millions of homeless people there. You see, the US does not see the need to be in Africa because it wouldn\'t do anything for us, or it doesn\'t hold any interest for us in the end.

You want to know one of the reasons that I think we invaded Iraq, which most people are aware of, Iraq is a bed of oil. Every reason that we gave for invading that country was just an excuse. No other nation would stop us because they are all chicken. I do not think that there will be any problems in the world if the United Nation is allowed to do its job, let whatever situation that you think will come up reach boiling point, then we can call on the super powers to throw their weights around.

America still meddles where it isn\'t wanted if you ask me, I am just waiting very patiently to see what comes out of the current drama that we have going with North Korea.

Until the US took over the conduct of war, the custom of war was: defeat them carry off their young women to pleasure their masters, put their young men in chains to power the galleons and work the field, plunder their treasuries and loot their temples.  When done, levy heavy taxes on those left behind.  

No country or adiministration is perfect, but if you find a better one than the US, please be kind enough to let me know, so I\'ll migrate there.  Who among you thinks that America would meddle if those countries decent human rights policies and freedom of expression?

Talking about war crimes, have you heard of all the different atrocities that go on at Abu Graib prison, aside from the picture scandal, have you heard the stories of children who are tortured by the US while they work on \'breaking\' their fathers. We don\'t necessarily have to  do those things like Prince said to rob these people of their pride, when we got to Iraq what was the first thing that we manned???....their oil fields, doesn\'t that tell us something. No, we didn\'t first of all go straight to Saddam\'s palace, we first of all went to make sure that noone had access to the oil mines.

Prince, I can tell you of a place that is close to perfect, Switzerland is one, do you know how rich that country is?, one of the richest in world as well. but do people in the world hate them, NO, do they go around trying to get people to change their ways of governance to their way of living, NO.

[objobj]

Honeybunnie, nne,(u said no maam or madam, so i hpoe nne is ok:) I got your back on everything you said am just going to add a few because American FP is a game of lies and deceptions. Anybody that thinks this country has the interest of the world at hand better think again.
Does anyone in here think that if Rowanda is of any economic value to US that 10 million people would die? How long did apartheid last? Not that it went away. The black presidents are just figure heads. If you visit South Africa you?ll see that apartheid is still alive and well just like racism is in this country. I will not put down things you all know already only the few that HB missed. Just keep in mind that the problem in the Middle East will NEVER go away or stop. Was it The Honorable Marcus Garvey that said??one man freedom fighting is another man?s terrorist action? The Arabs need to be left alone. They do not need any democracy. That?s my one and only one kobo on this issue.

[Honeybunnie]

Obj, you know you hit another aspect of the whole issue, it has so many different sides, and many heads are needed to bring all those sides out, I totally even forgot about Rwanda.

Rice met with China\'s leadership and focused their discussions on North Korea.

\"We need to resolve this issue, it cannot go on forever,\"
...\"The European Union should do nothing to contribute,\" to the possibility that Chinese forces might turn European technology on Americans

The European Union may soon lift an arms embargo on China that was imposed after the deadly 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Lifting the embargo would allow sale of technology and weapons that China badly wants to modernize its creaky military. China has recently gone on a military spending spree that Rice said concerns the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/rice.china/index.html

I don\'t think the US wants any other country to develope their military arsenal. This is very interesting stuff going on. I am loving world politics, I tell you.