Is the USA a big bully these days?

dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene.

dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene.

The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for that.

And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil) companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world police (that is a very, very arrogant position).

Badabec wrote: dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene. The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for that. And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil) companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world police (that is a very, very arrogant position).

I agree. If we truly had concern for the people of that region, we might try to understand their culture a bit more. Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.

IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote:   [ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.   Care to explain how it was personal interest?

If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say.

Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more?

If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?

The US is absolutely a "big bully". It has been the most aggressive nation on Earth since World War II and has propped up some of the most despicable regimes in the name of elite interest.

The U.S. was a bully during Wilson's precidency.  So this isn't a new thing.

bhikkhu wrote: If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?

Badabec wrote: IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote: IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote:   [ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.   Care to explain how it was personal interest? If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.  I personally think he was less offending than you. He did not call you a fool or anything. Please let us discuss in a polite way or the admins may close or delete this interesting poll. Name calling is not my style. That was just an advice. There’s a certain air of arrogance in his phrase – there could be things obvious to me and obscure for him. The only thing obvious in his repeating after liberal media is the fact that it’s a beaten path leading nowhere. Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. Well, there exist several documents that prove that the american gouvernment has most likely been interested in the great oilfields of Iraq and other countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arabian Emirates (documents by the NEPDG where Richard Cheney, Bush's vice president was the director).Protecting the energy sources has been long a cornerstone of US foreign policy. That’s what I’ve heard Jim Baker saying on TV a few years ago referring to the war. But of course, he’s retired. When he was in office his statements were so obtuse that the only thing one could get from them was that they’re doing something which you will not know what it is for quite a long time if ever. You will never hear a straight-forward talk from an acting politician. And the official version makes me throw up. So the oil fields are the main interest, but how is it personal? I do believe the system of checks and balances still works. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?  It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people  Oh yes, "you" were! Bush asserted that the United States has the duty to free people. If you do not believe me, please check this out and read this article: By “we” I meant us on this forum, not the US. For my view on the propaganda see above. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html

^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one.

IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote: IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote:   [ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.   Care to explain how it was personal interest? If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?  It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>

I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more.

I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative. But don't worry, there is still Fox News.