ClumsyMonkey.net

No one comes marching into America looking to take out WMD's from us because we have a huge army ready to attack at any time. We have the UN to help us fight if we needed it. And the most important reason, we pump a shit-ton of money into nearly every nation in the world, so no one wants to touch us, because it would jeopardize their money that they receive from us. That's just how it is.

Dear God, I hope you all know I don't support Bush, I'm just making logical points here.

Rusty wrote:

Corey wrote:Bush thought Iraqis had WMD's and could possibly sell them to terrorists. Bush was wrong. I believe his concern was genuine but unfortunately mistaken. Do I think the war could have waited? Yes. Do I think that the war needed to happen eventually anyways? Yes. We know that they have had WMDs in the past. What has happened to them? Who knows.

America has weapons of mass destrction too. America has enough nukes to destroy the world three times, but you don't see other countries marching into America to destroy them.

You also don't see the US using them. Saddam did use them and on his own people no less. Also, Iraq was bound to a resolution to destroy those weapons and disregarded it completely. The US has no such resolution.

The United States has used its fair share of WMD's.

if you looked at the world like a playground and all the countries as children in it, the U.S. would be the big bully that everyone is "friends" with mostly because their afraid and if their "friends" they won't get hurt, and countries that aren't "friends" with America get picked on

A bully who gives the little kids lots and lots of candy.

mmm skittles

candy is good, but not as good as doritos

Republican wrote:A bully who gives the little kids lots and lots of candy.

Yeah, I was going to say. More like the teacher of the class that watches out for the smaller kids and makes sure that the bullies leave them alone. Sure, there are plenty of kids that don't appreciate what the teacher is doing but its all for the better in the end.

one difference from America being the teaceher though, when the America decided they were going to war a teacher would never say "either you're with us, or you're against us" thats when it differes from teacher, to bully being paid for protection

And because, rather than helping to teach a naughty student to do right, he/she beat the student over the head with a fucking lead pipe, and then sent it off to rehab to be assimilated back into the classroom.

Besides, this whole metaphore is way out of whack. The US doesn't rule the world.

it just wishes it did

Well... it's easier to sleep at night when you know you're safe from people who don't like you.

But more importantly, it's easier to sleep when you know your corporation is making billions off of reconstruction contracts.

its not so easy to sleep when theres the threat of a bomb flying up your ass though

You missed my point.

The US point of view is, "If they don't like us, we're going to get rid of them."

And because, rather than helping to teach a naughty student to do right, he/she beat the student over the head with a fucking lead pipe, and then sent it off to rehab to be assimilated back into the classroom.

I think my grandpa would say..."ah, the good old days".

Unfortunately, a lot of the aide provided by the USA is only given to countries who will conform to the American govt's wishes. Step out of line with American policy and you lose your aide.

I wish we were isolated again. I legitimately do. This country could be self-sufficient without having to import things from countries that really have nothing to offer us. Not to mention half the countries we give out loans to will never be albe to pay us back (read: every African nation) and if we try to collect on our money, we're called "Great Satan" and everyone thrashes us.

Tell me why we honestly need to keep up our appearances, play big brother to everyone else, and defend everything when every country resents us?

Well the USA might become much more protectionist in the next few years. There has been talks of modifying free trade agreements because of all the jobs the US has lost to overseas markets. As much as that isn't necessarily isolation in the sense you're speaking of, it is a large factor in the isolation of a country.

I think the US should get their nose out of a lot of country's business, only because rather than mediate, they tend to pick sides, which leads to more unrest from certain groups/countries. As much as Canada's peacekeeping missions have decreased over the past 10 years, I'm proud to say that when we do go into a country to help, we don't pick a side and fight an opposition. If the US adopted this policy I think the world would be better off.

That would be grand and all, but I don't see the US doing anything like that. The leaders of this country are overzealous and will keep getting into people's business we have no business being in. We don't need anyone else to help us out. We keep a couple of alliances, like Canada, Great Britian, and maybe a couple more from the EU, and we will be fine. We can keep helping fight the AIDS epidemic in all those African nations, and that should be it. We don't need to do anything else. Hell, we don't need to help the African nations out, but we still should, because they're too fucking stupid to properly operate a condom.

I think you have to remember that as actual countries most of the African countries are rather new compared to the rest of the world. They need time to grow politically, and economically. Don't forget that the US civil war happened less than 100 years into it's existance.

Also, a large problem with the aids epidemic is that children are being born with the disease. It's not just that people don't know how to use a condom. As much as unprotected sex was the problem, now it's mainly the fact that children are getting the disease at birth. These children are being educated, and aids in Africa has decreased recently. It'll take time before that epidemic is solved, or at least until a cure is actually found.