No announcement yet.

Policing the world

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Policing the world

    Do you think the U.S.A. is trying to be a big bully by policing the world?

  • #2
    Do you think the U.S.A. is trying to be a big bully by policing the world?


    • #3
      Excellent poll. American's stand up and be counted.


      • #4
        No, it just comes naturally.

        I find it interesting that the question assumes it is a given that the USA is indeed policing the world (and implies that is a good thing). Even if the USA was more humble (that was Bush's word during the campaign, not mine) in its policing, I think the very fact it is policing the world is a problem. And it is ironic in light of the fact that Republicans used to be very much against this whole idea (which was Bush's position during the campaign). But of course one is entitled to change his or her opinion.


        • #5
          Originally posted by nudist_in_Tn:
          [qb]Do you think the U.S.A. is trying to be a big bully by policing the world?[/qb]
          The US is viewed as a bully not because it wants to police the world but because it is not prepared to fully participate in the collective policing of the world.

          I have not voted in your poll because you have asked leading questions.



          • #6
            I can't vote in this poll because I don't believe either answer is correct. As is often the case with polls, the answers given don't cover the whole range of views. I think the ideas underlying your question are quite complex and most people's views probably couldn't be expressed in the simple way a poll would demand.

            A worthy subject for debate might be "What do you see the US's responsibility as a country to be in dealing with other countries?"


            • #7
              I couldn't vote either. The two answers are OK, but there are other possible answers. Ones that would be somewhere between being wrong and a bully and being absolutely right.

              I don't think either answer is correct, but I'm sure there are those who believe one or the other is. That's why I say these answers are OK for those who want to choose one of them.


              • #8
                RT again with his penny, lucky it was pay day.

                America only gets involved if it effects Americas interest.

                Iraq, mmmm, Oil !

                Kuwait, mmmm Oil !

                Just to name a few.

                RT signing out.


                • #9
                  To be so young and so smart!
                  I envy you.


                  • #10
                    Oh come on, You are looking a little shallow aren't you? If you think hard I bet you could come up with a few ways that the U.S. has spent time,money,and energy, to help other nations.

                    Rt posted:
                    America only gets involved if it effects Americas interest.
                    I do not even want to comment on that, I do however think that you should reconsider those words a little more.

                    Think about how many nations we threw money and resources to when they needed assistance. Think about the 10,000 plus Americans that died fighting for France.The list is a long one.

                    I was born and raised in America. I was often bittered by the fact that we have sunk so much of our resources into other countries, when we could have used them for our OWN good. Then I thought how selfish that would be, and it made me even MORE proud to be an American.

                    So you can keep puttin in your pennies, RT , when you run out, an American will fill your hand with more!!


                    • #11
                      RT: I guess that oil is in the interest of the United States, but also in the interest of your country, (don't you also have vehicles)? It is poised to make sure the oil fields are not in the hands of a tyrannt such as Saddam, which are already wired up to go up in great balls of fire. Yes, Saddam has his oil fields wired so that the oil fields will be blown up by remote control. Is this what you really want? Oil is the "gold" of the region, and it has been used a leverage by the oil rich Middle East, to usually get what they want. We cannot afford to have Saddam to continue to profit from the oil reserves, while at the same time, his people are literally being killed, starved or just plain left out in the cold. We must see to it, that the oil in Iraq is in the hands of a more moderate leader, one who would not use it as a bargaining chip.

                      Rik: You state that the United States is not prepared to police the world collectively? What do you think we have been doing all these years? The United States has been to all corners of the world policing up the corruption and tragedies. It's the United States who has repeatedly been asked to respond to world events for aid of all types. Do you read about any other country being asked to do the same? Not at all. It's sad that there are anti-Americans out there, that at a moments notice, will turn around and ask for assistance. Does America ask for assistance? NO! We take care of our own (9/11/01).

                      I just wish people would wake up and take note on how to handle a world trouble spot. If it hadn't been for the United Nations, Saddam would not have been in power this long. I will take one thing in stride, we should have done this 12 years ago when we were already there. Major blunder. God bless America and the men and women of the Armed Forces.


                      • #12
                        Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war?


                        • #13
                          I dont understand either Wannabe but I love hearing all the opinions even if I dont agree with all of them, keep on posting folks at least we can agree to disagree.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
                            [qb]Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war?
                            [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [/qb]
                            No! I'll bet no one can. Realisticly.

                            God Bless America, and those who love her enough to fight! (No war during my prime... or I'ld of been there)

                            It is about Saddam... as the President of the USA seemed to mention Monday night. I back AMERICA, therefore I back with my heart and my AMERICAN right... her PRESIDENT.

                            It is amazing how we help every one in the WORLD that we all live in, but can still be judged as looking out for AMERICA.

                            Doesn't Rohde Island look out for herself also, yet many of her citizens enrole in the armed forces for America, that does most of it's work through-out the WORLD! That is why we are forcing Saddam out of Iraq... the WORLD/EARTH/THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN. Don't you get the fact that we are a world power, because we care and we can. I wounder if Saddam gives two rats a** about the world... think about it. Do you?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
                              [qb]Could someone please explain to me just how the US could benefit (in terms of oil) from this war?[/qb]
                              You could have a look at this article which appears (along with others) at .

                              "Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.


                              President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.[1]
                              The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

                              The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
                              Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (?2.5bn), beating analyst expectations.[2]
                              War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

                              Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?


                              [1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.

                              [2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.

                              So there's one opinion. I'm sure there are others.