American Foreign Policy

[Gundam08]

The United States has been hit hard economically as of late, and spreading our military forces out to the middle east has not only cost more money than most of us can imagine, but it has also put a terrible burden on the American people for decades to come. The Middle East is a place of turmoil and only seems to cause more trouble. Should the United States stay involved in Middle East issues? Why? Should we look for alternative fuel supplies and stop relying on the region for our oil? Should the US leave the UN to deal with problems in this region?

Shoudl America pull it's forces out of Germany and Japan? Also, should the United States stay involved in South Korea? WWII ended in 1945 and the Korean War ended in 1953, is it time to pull out?

Why do Americans feel it is there duty to solve problems around the world? Should American show off it's military might or should they just go home?

[Kyuu]

The US did think about leaving Korea this year, but the South Koreans -- despite the protests -- still favor US presence there.

As for Germany, there is no need. For now, Europe can defend itself from its worst enemy. Themselves.

As for Japan, they are there just in case things happen in Korea.


Should we look for alternative fuel supplies and stop relying on the region for our oil?

We have, it's just that most of the funding goes towards securing more oil supplies... :roll:

[Nowhere_Man]

the Korean War ended in 1953

not true. The Korean War has NOT ended. A truce was temporarily declared which has been in place for the past 50 years... but not an end to the war.

[Gundam08]

not true. The Korean War has NOT ended. A truce was temporarily declared which has been in place for the past 50 years... but not an end to the war.

Really? I did not know that. I was just learning about the war in my history class and I was under the impression that it was ended. I mean, I know it's the most heavily defended boarder in the entire world, but honestly... with all those protests you would think they didn't take history classes.

[Nowhere_Man]

not true. The Korean War has NOT ended. A truce was temporarily declared which has been in place for the past 50 years... but not an end to the war.

Really? I did not know that. I was just learning about the war in my history class and I was under the impression that it was ended. I mean, I know it's the most heavily defended boarder in the entire world, but honestly... with all those protests you would think they didn't take history classes.

Yeah, it's an obscure fact about the war; it never ended. In S. Korea, they were burning N. Korea's flag, and John Stuart says "I didn't know flags other than ours even burned!"

[Gundam08]

not true. The Korean War has NOT ended. A truce was temporarily declared which has been in place for the past 50 years... but not an end to the war.

Really? I did not know that. I was just learning about the war in my history class and I was under the impression that it was ended. I mean, I know it's the most heavily defended boarder in the entire world, but honestly... with all those protests you would think they didn't take history classes.

Yeah, it's an obscure fact about the war; it never ended. In S. Korea, they were burning N. Korea's flag, and John Stuart says "I didn't know flags other than ours even burned!"

Lmao, oh god that's priceless. John Stuart is the man. I really should try to catch the Daily Show more often.

[Gundam08]

It's said that the most difficult job for a foreign dictator today is to shelter his country from the outside world. This is increasingly difficult given advances in technology amoung other things. Now the US has a policy that if your government is not what we think it should be, we won't recongize you. Basically, we won't trade, we won't give foreign aid, we won't do anything you do unless it involves dropping bombs on your buildings.

Now, wouldn't it be easier to say to a dictator like Kim Jun Il, "Hey man, we're going to politically recognize you, in fact we are going to send an ambassitor, and our companies are going to come over and sell our stuff."
Would it not be easier and cheaper to economically and culturally invade their country?

I recently read an exerpt of part of North Korea's version of what happened in the Korean War. It was directly from their website (which I wish I still had), and it was simultaniously the funniest and saddest thing I have ever read. How badly history has been skewed is scary. If we were to drop this insane policy then maybe we could change something, but the current administration won't even talk to the North Korean government, even when they suggested it!!!

[goji2099]

US foreign Policy made easy.

Bush: Will you be my friend?

Foreign leader: No.

Bush: Today, we have declared war on another foreign nation harboring terrorists and/or Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Kyuu]

Now, wouldn't it be easier to say to a dictator like Kim Jun Il, "Hey man, we're going to politically recognize you, in fact we are going to send an ambassitor, and our companies are going to come over and sell our stuff."
Would it not be easier and cheaper to economically and culturally invade their country?

The problem is that they would go all-out across the demilitarized zone -- and Seoul is well within artillery range. Nice place for a capital, huh?

If the cease fire ever breaks there, we are definitely going to see some major fireworks.

[Gundam08]

The problem is that they would go all-out across the demilitarized zone -- and Seoul is well within artillery range. Nice place for a capital, huh?

If the cease fire ever breaks there, we are definitely going to see some major fireworks.

No no no. I am talking about using diplomacy to bring them down. If we can break their social barrier of ignoarnce their government will collapse. A dictator always wants you to think that what he has to offer is the best. And a revolution happens when people's needs are not being satisfied. Fighting a KWII does not sound pleasant. The first one was hard enough. It isn't as risky and it might save American lives if we do use diplomacy.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

The United States has been hit hard economically as of late, and spreading our military forces out to the middle east has not only cost more money than most of us can imagine, but it has also put a terrible burden on the American people for decades to come.

Bush, thankfully, isn't the reason most of that happened. Bill Clinton kind of caused most of that, or some of the other numerous presidents before George W. Bush. I believe that the U.S. is the only nation that has ever really contributed to the most important jobs. The U.N. guards the borders of Syria and Lebanon, guarding on the Lebanese and Syrian side, but not the Israeli side. While the U.S. is about the only nation guarding the DMZ of Korea. The U.N. often refuses to help the U.S. in incredibly important tasks like Afghanistan and Iraq, but seems to think that Africa is more important. Africa is very important, but the U.N. shouldn't be so stuck-up about Iraq or Afghanistan.


The Middle East is a place of turmoil and only seems to cause more trouble. Should the United States stay involved in Middle East issues? Why?

I believe the U.S. should be involved in helping these developing nations along. However, it would be good if the U.N. would help the U.S. and not oppose it on every path the U.S. takes. The U,N. has a responsibility as the new world order to help other nations, especially one as important as the U.S.


not true. The Korean War has NOT ended. A truce was temporarily declared which has been in place for the past 50 years... but not an end to the war.

A truce is an end to a war. It may not be a formal end, but it is an end. The conflict never ended, but the war did.


Now, wouldn't it be easier to say to a dictator like Kim Jun Il, "Hey man, we're going to politically recognize you, in fact we are going to send an ambassitor, and our companies are going to come over and sell our stuff." Would it not be easier and cheaper to economically and culturally invade their country?

That policy has worked for many other nations, but in some cases that policy is strongly restricted by those dictators. Sometimes the quickest way and best way to resolve the problem is through force. North Korea will probably only change if they collapse or are forced to. The likelihood of harmful transition is lost on them.


Bush: Will you be my friend?

Foreign leader: No.

Bush: Today, we have declared war on another foreign nation harboring terrorists and/or Weapons of Mass Destruction

Yeah, like attacking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was a very awful thing to do. :roll: Mind you, Iraq did harbor terrorists and reconstitute their WMD programs.

[Gundam08]

Bush, thankfully, isn't the reason most of that happened. Bill Clinton kind of caused most of that, or some of the other numerous presidents before George W. Bush. I believe that the U.S. is the only nation that has ever really contributed to the most important jobs. The U.N. guards the borders of Syria and Lebanon, guarding on the Lebanese and Syrian side, but not the Israeli side. While the U.S. is about the only nation guarding the DMZ of Korea. The U.N. often refuses to help the U.S. in incredibly important tasks like Afghanistan and Iraq, but seems to think that Africa is more important. Africa is very important, but the U.N. shouldn't be so stuck-up about Iraq or Afghanistan.

Noooo, Bush didn't completely screw up the budget or anything. He didn't throw our entire surplus away. He didn't contribute to the 80,000 jobs lost every month (3,000,000 in total). Bush's policies didn't drive away business that will be impossible to get back. Bush is completely innocent, it's that guy who got the bj. *note: massive sarcasim*


I believe the U.S. should be involved in helping these developing nations along. However, it would be good if the U.N. would help the U.S. and not oppose it on every path the U.S. takes. The U,N. has a responsibility as the new world order to help other nations, especially one as important as the U.S.

The UN doesn't support the US because the US chose a path of war when there was an obvious option for peace.


That policy has worked for many other nations, but in some cases that policy is strongly restricted by those dictators. Sometimes the quickest way and best way to resolve the problem is through force. North Korea will probably only change if they collapse or are forced to. The likelihood of harmful transition is lost on them.

So... are you suggesting that we invade North Korea? Wow... I mean... damn dude, that's just insane.


Yeah, like attacking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was a very awful thing to do. :roll: Mind you, Iraq did harbor terrorists and reconstitute their WMD programs.

Iraq didn't have any ties to Al-Quada. They weren't a threat to US security. They had oil!!! I know you don't want to believe that, but believe it! Every US War is driven by something economical (or political).

[Lord of the Pikachu]

Noooo, Bush didn't completely screw up the budget or anything. He didn't throw our entire surplus away. He didn't contribute to the 80,000 jobs lost every month (3,000,000 in total). Bush's policies didn't drive away business that will be impossible to get back. Bush is completely innocent, it's that guy who got the bj. *note: massive sarcasim*

Those are all direct results of 9-11, recession, and you can also blame the intifada in Israel. Not to mention the Iraq war, a result of 9-11. You can't seriously blame Bush for the first three things I mentioned that happened barely into his presidency. If anyone is to blame for those occurnces it would be Clinton. Jobs would have been lost at a greater amount had Bush not cut taxes. His cuts gave money to the people directly or indirectly and caused a surge in sales. The economy grew last quarter by 8.2%, revised from 7.2, and you're telling me that's a mistake.


The UN doesn't support the US because the US chose a path of war when there was an obvious option for peace.

If that was true, why didn't Saddam step down, even though he knew the U.S. would attack and win? He was given numerous warnings, but he never cooperated and was even hiding weapons that the inspectors told him were illegal. He had illegal weapons, but we've found evidence that there was a WMD program and missile program that violated regulations. There are numerous reports with corroborating sources that show al Qaeda sought training in chemical and biological weapons from Iraq. How could Iraq train them in using something they never had? The option for peace would leave a dictator in power who killed civillians, had WMD, and supported terrorists. How do you resolve peace?


So... are you suggesting that we invade North Korea? Wow... I mean... damn dude, that's just insane.

Only if it is abolutely required. This time we'd win, because China will help us rather than them. North Korea will either collapse or strike and cause war. I see no clear future for them besides that. The likelihood of a peaceful revolution is definitely ridiculous at best. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many governments changed their ways, but now North Korea is one of very few who still cling to Marxist ideals. They'd likely only stop either by invasion or economic collapse. Neither are pretty, but one will most likely happen soon. I'm thinking collapse will be closest, and it would be better than war.


Iraq didn't have any ties to Al-Quada. They weren't a threat to US security. They had oil!!! I know you don't want to believe that, but believe it! Every US War is driven by something economical (or political).

Iraq had ties that I've shown and many others have shown constantly on these debates. Look at some of the previous topics discussing this and see the proof yourself. Iraq wasn't as threatening as Iran, but Iraq was a far better target. Iraq is not very appreciated in the Arabian peninsula and not quite as strong as some other choices. We can still resolve most of the other nations' problems without force, but sometimes we need to use force.

Oil had so little to do with this war, it's sad. If we wanted oil we'd invade Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I imagine oil was a factor, but the primary factors were terrorism and WMD. I don't believe it because you can't prove it. If you could prove it that would be nice. The economy is the very backbone of our society, so we'd always think of the economy before war. I think a president considers what might happen if he goes to war, but that doesn't make a war about politics and oil. War is about security first and politics second.

[Gundam08]

Those are all direct results of 9-11, recession, and you can also blame the intifada in Israel. Not to mention the Iraq war, a result of 9-11. You can't seriously blame Bush for the first three things I mentioned that happened barely into his presidency. If anyone is to blame for those occurnces it would be Clinton. Jobs would have been lost at a greater amount had Bush not cut taxes. His cuts gave money to the people directly or indirectly and caused a surge in sales. The economy grew last quarter by 8.2%, revised from 7.2, and you're telling me that's a mistake.

So, all this is Clinton's fault? Okay, I'm not aa big Clinton fan, but that's just the biggest load of conservative bullshit (pardon my language). Dude, the economy has risen, but he shouldn't have cut taxes in the first place. Economists are saying that the market will fall again, and new jobs are nowhere to be found, because dispite the tax cuts companies still aren't hiring. These cuts will just create debts that my generation will have to pay off, not Bush's.

9-11 wasn't anyone's fault, but the Iraq War was Bush's fault. It was started by the US. Iraq wasn't the aggesor. We invaded. You can't say that Saddam had an army massing in Mexico (I swear that's what Bush will say next).


If that was true, why didn't Saddam step down, even though he knew the U.S. would attack and win? He was given numerous warnings, but he never cooperated and was even hiding weapons that the inspectors told him were illegal. He had illegal weapons, but we've found evidence that there was a WMD program and missile program that violated regulations. There are numerous reports with corroborating sources that show al Qaeda sought training in chemical and biological weapons from Iraq. How could Iraq train them in using something they never had? The option for peace would leave a dictator in power who killed civillians, had WMD, and supported terrorists. How do you resolve peace?

He didn't step down because he never thought we would actually invade. His top advisors told him that we would, and they urged him to step down, but he was in denial. The UN didn't spporve it, and he thought we would never act without the UN. The UN had the situation under control with weapons inspectors. Even if he did have the weapons (which he in fact does not) he would be spending all his time and energy hiding the weapons and not devising insane plans with them. Saddam is a smart man, and he would not provoke the US again.

Saddam killed his civilians, but what dictator we support doesn't? Honestly, name one. He didn't have WMDs. I mean, he did, but they were all used up from the Iran-Iraq War. Years of sanctions forced him to scrap any and all programs from obtaining weapons. He didn't have WMDs. I mean, everyone says that. They found proof that in fact all the weapons were just on paper and weren't real. And those "labs" they found weren't even labs. I forget what the hell they were but I laughed when I found out. I can't believe you have so much faith in this administration. I thought you didn't trust the government?


Only if it is abolutely required. This time we'd win, because China will help us rather than them. North Korea will either collapse or strike and cause war. I see no clear future for them besides that. The likelihood of a peaceful revolution is definitely ridiculous at best. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many governments changed their ways, but now North Korea is one of very few who still cling to Marxist ideals. They'd likely only stop either by invasion or economic collapse. Neither are pretty, but one will most likely happen soon. I'm thinking collapse will be closest, and it would be better than war.

Dude, the problem this time around isn't China. It's nukes. I mean, it doesn't matter if every country in the world is behind you on this, if they launch a nuke... not much is going to stop it.


Iraq had ties that I've shown and many others have shown constantly on these debates. Look at some of the previous topics discussing this and see the proof yourself. Iraq wasn't as threatening as Iran, but Iraq was a far better target. Iraq is not very appreciated in the Arabian peninsula and not quite as strong as some other choices. We can still resolve most of the other nations' problems without force, but sometimes we need to use force.

Oil had so little to do with this war, it's sad. If we wanted oil we'd invade Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I imagine oil was a factor, but the primary factors were terrorism and WMD. I don't believe it because you can't prove it. If you could prove it that would be nice. The economy is the very backbone of our society, so we'd always think of the economy before war. I think a president considers what might happen if he goes to war, but that doesn't make a war about politics and oil. War is about security first and politics second.

Invade Saudi Arabia? Ummm... okay now I'm just reading jibba jabba. The force was not nessecary. The UN could deal with this problem, and not only did it give America the nickname of the "Arrogant Empire", but it's cost us more than many Americans are willing to give.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

So, all this is Clinton's fault? Okay, I'm not aa big Clinton fan, but that's just the biggest load of conservative bullshit (pardon my language).

I'm not a conservative. I'm stating that Bush could hardly be responsible for the recession, 9-11 or the intifada. A lot of people blame Bush for those things, but they happened at the beginning of his administration and weren't clearly involved with him. So who do we blame for not attacking terrorists, not fixing the economy, and not mending the Israeli-Jew and Israeli-Arab problem? The person who last served, Clinton. His inaction towards terrorists, withdrawal from Somalia, and constant weak bombings on Iraq, not to mention him giving high-tech spy equipment to Syria, were all obvious reasons that terrorism thrives today. Bush has probably gotten the closest to causing peace in Israel, but on a minor issue the system fails. Al Qaeda has actually been weakened, and the economy is growing.


Dude, the economy has risen, but he shouldn't have cut taxes in the first place. Economists are saying that the market will fall again, and new jobs are nowhere to be found, because dispite the tax cuts companies still aren't hiring. These cuts will just create debts that my generation will have to pay off, not Bush's.

Patience is a virtue. Eventually jobs will stop be lost. In fact, jobs are being made. The economy will come back, but then we'll need higher taxes to fix the deficit. Debt is naturally going to occur after tax cuts, but tax increases balance the budget, however those increases cause the economy to shrink and taxes must be cut. It's a pretty simply economic policy.


9-11 wasn't anyone's fault, but the Iraq War was Bush's fault. It was started by the US. Iraq wasn't the aggesor. We invaded. You can't say that Saddam had an army massing in Mexico (I swear that's what Bush will say next).

Well the terrorists obviously intended to crash into the WTC. However, Clinton could have stopped terrorists, but never did. Iraq was violating U.N. regulations, plain and simple. There's no denying that, but whether or not Iraq had chemical of biological weapons is another matter.


Saddam killed his civilians, but what dictator we support doesn't? Honestly, name one. He didn't have WMDs. I mean, he did, but they were all used up from the Iran-Iraq War. Years of sanctions forced him to scrap any and all programs from obtaining weapons. He didn't have WMDs. I mean, everyone says that. They found proof that in fact all the weapons were just on paper and weren't real. And those "labs" they found weren't even labs. I forget what the hell they were but I laughed when I found out. I can't believe you have so much faith in this administration. I thought you didn't trust the government?

Of course, I told you to check the numerous topics on WMD, but you apparently didn't. Actually, I don't believe it has been proven either way. There is no proof that there are WMDs, because, in fact, there are no WMDs, but if Saddam wanted them, he had all the materials. I trust facts.


Dude, the problem this time around isn't China. It's nukes. I mean, it doesn't matter if every country in the world is behind you on this, if they launch a nuke... not much is going to stop it.

Actually we have no proof they're making nukes. We have no proof they have nukes. They just might have no nukes. It could all be a large propoganda campaign by North Korea to blackmail the United States into giving them money. We could stop the couple of nukes they might have, anyway. I imagine they have some, but I'm not holding out on that.


Invade Saudi Arabia? Ummm... okay now I'm just reading jibba jabba. The force was not nessecary. The UN could deal with this problem, and not only did it give America the nickname of the "Arrogant Empire", but it's cost us more than many Americans are willing to give.

The U.N. might have done squat and probably would have done squat. The United Nations has never really enforced its regulations ever. The force could have been delayed to a more proper time, but it would have happened, because Saddam didn't care about the U.N.

[Gundam08]

I'm not a conservative. I'm stating that Bush could hardly be responsible for the recession, 9-11 or the intifada. A lot of people blame Bush for those things, but they happened at the beginning of his administration and weren't clearly involved with him. So who do we blame for not attacking terrorists, not fixing the economy, and not mending the Israeli-Jew and Israeli-Arab problem? The person who last served, Clinton. His inaction towards terrorists, withdrawal from Somalia, and constant weak bombings on Iraq, not to mention him giving high-tech spy equipment to Syria, were all obvious reasons that terrorism thrives today. Bush has probably gotten the closest to causing peace in Israel, but on a minor issue the system fails. Al Qaeda has actually been weakened, and the economy is growing.

Not a conservative? My bad I get the term conservative and moron mixed up a lot.


Patience is a virtue. Eventually jobs will stop be lost. In fact, jobs are being made. The economy will come back, but then we'll need higher taxes to fix the deficit. Debt is naturally going to occur after tax cuts, but tax increases balance the budget, however those increases cause the economy to shrink and taxes must be cut. It's a pretty simply economic policy.

I don't care man, even though I didn't like Clinton right now I want the man back.


Well the terrorists obviously intended to crash into the WTC. However, Clinton could have stopped terrorists, but never did. Iraq was violating U.N. regulations, plain and simple. There's no denying that, but whether or not Iraq had chemical of biological weapons is another matter.

He was actually going to declare a war on terrorism, but he did not because he thought it would effect the election. Any Republican would have done the same thing.


Of course, I told you to check the numerous topics on WMD, but you apparently didn't. Actually, I don't believe it has been proven either way. There is no proof that there are WMDs, because, in fact, there are no WMDs, but if Saddam wanted them, he had all the materials. I trust facts.

I do not trust your "facts".


Actually we have no proof they're making nukes. We have no proof they have nukes. They just might have no nukes. It could all be a large propoganda campaign by North Korea to blackmail the United States into giving them money. We could stop the couple of nukes they might have, anyway. I imagine they have some, but I'm not holding out on that.

Oh okay, so let's just roll the dice and hope they don't detonate a nuke when we are outside their capital.


The U.N. might have done squat and probably would have done squat. The United Nations has never really enforced its regulations ever. The force could have been delayed to a more proper time, but it would have happened, because Saddam didn't care about the U.N.

If the UN doesn't see the need to enforce regulations with force then they are probably doing their job. They were created to minamise world conflict. And they do that with force when nessecary!!! It was not nessecary this time, but it was the first time.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

Not a conservative? My bad I get the term conservative and moron mixed up a lot.

That was uncalled for. First of all, conservatives are not morons. Second of all, I am not a moron and that was a deplorable attack on my integrity. I do not take kindly to attacks on people's integrity. Third of all, had you read the quote you listed you'd have noticed that what I said made a lot of sense. In order for Bush to have stopped 9-11, the recession, and the intifada, he'd have to reverse every bad diplomatic, economic, and military decision made by Clinton. If he did that, he'd be the best president ever, but it would have been impossible for anyone.


I don't care man, even though I didn't like Clinton right now I want the man back.

Do you mean you don't care that the economy is repaired, jobs are bound to come back and the Dow Jones is approaching 10,000? Where's the logic in that?


He was actually going to declare a war on terrorism, but he did not because he thought it would effect the election. Any Republican would have done the same thing.

He had 8 years to do it. He never did it. He tried, but failed miserably. He had three opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, but passed on all of them. How is that fighting terrorism? Of course, then he blames Bush for not fighting terrorism. How dumb is that?


I do not trust your "facts".

Hey, they're not my facts. I find them, but I don't own them.


Oh okay, so let's just roll the dice and hope they don't detonate a nuke when we are outside their capital.

Are you only reading the parts you don't like? I never said I wanted an invasion, but that it was either going to be that, or economic collapse. I never said we should invade because they might have no nukes. I'm not crazy.


If the UN doesn't see the need to enforce regulations with force then they are probably doing their job. They were created to minamise world conflict. And they do that with force when nessecary !!! It was not nessecary this time, but it was the first time.

Force was necessary. The U.N. was probably going to support it for the most part, but France, Germany, Russia, and China were all opposed to it. Funny, they happen to be the ones providing Iraq with illegal weapons. Not to mention, it was election time in Germany. :D The U.N. got angry at Israel over that one bombing in Syria, but Syria is harboring and helping terrorists, but they don't pay attention to that. Yeah, the U.N. is always interested in the common good. :roll:

[Kyuu]

One thing for certain... the USA cannot afford to have a policy of Isolation.... a policy that was in effect from the Monroe Doctrine all the way to WW2. Of course, there was WW1, but America was pushed into that.

Anyways, global stability is of the utmost importance; and the US knows that. That's why the US is always in the heat of things when global problems occur...

[Gundam08]

That was uncalled for. First of all, conservatives are not morons. Second of all, I am not a moron and that was a deplorable attack on my integrity. I do not take kindly to attacks on people's integrity. Third of all, had you read the quote you listed you'd have noticed that what I said made a lot of sense. In order for Bush to have stopped 9-11, the recession, and the intifada, he'd have to reverse every bad diplomatic, economic, and military decision made by Clinton. If he did that, he'd be the best president ever, but it would have been impossible for anyone.

Wait, aren't you the same man that told me to take a joke?


Do you mean you don't care that the economy is repaired, jobs are bound to come back and the Dow Jones is approaching 10,000? Where's the logic in that?

I care about my civil liberties. I care about how jobs are not coming back for at least another 2 years (which has nothing to do with anything Bush did). I care about how my generation is going to have to pay off Bush's debt. I care about my life, and my freedom to make descisions. Imagine, Bush not having to worry about reelection. Personally I'm afraid he'll use terrorism as an excuse to boost security and take away civil liberties. The Patriot Act is very dangerous in the wrong hands. You know Bush once said:

"If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

I think a shiver just ran down my spine.


He had 8 years to do it. He never did it. He tried, but failed miserably. He had three opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, but passed on all of them. How is that fighting terrorism? Of course, then he blames Bush for not fighting terrorism. How dumb is that?

He was going to do it in his last year. He had less than a year and he couldn't predict the future. Of course, George Bush was in office for a year when this happened. If you think Clinton should have acted why do you not point the finger at Bush also? The man had time enough to act.


Hey, they're not my facts. I find them, but I don't own them.

But you present them. I do not see any "works cited" so I credit you.


Are you only reading the parts you don't like? I never said I wanted an invasion, but that it was either going to be that, or economic collapse. I never said we should invade because they might have no nukes. I'm not crazy.

You said force is sometimes nessecary. So I assumed that you were talking about the very topic which you were quoting, which happens to be about North Korea. I gave you a response, and it seems you don't like it so I guess it's not about that now.


Force was necessary. The U.N. was probably going to support it for the most part, but France, Germany, Russia, and China were all opposed to it. Funny, they happen to be the ones providing Iraq with illegal weapons. Not to mention, it was election time in Germany. :D The U.N. got angry at Israel over that one bombing in Syria, but Syria is harboring and helping terrorists, but they don't pay attention to that. Yeah, the U.N. is always interested in the common good. :roll:

Force was nessecary? And who are you to say that? The United Nations said that UN Weapons Inspectors were doing their job and yet you seem to believe that you have all the answers. If the UN said that force wasn't nessecary I tend to believe them.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

Wait, aren't you the same man that told me to take a joke?

I forget.


Not a conservative? My bad I get the term conservative and moron mixed up a lot.

I'd like to know how this is a joke. Even as a joke it wasn't very good at all.


You know Bush once said:

"If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

I think a shiver just ran down my spine.

First of all, are you afraid of Bush? Second, I believe every president thinks that and may have said that.


He was going to do it in his last year. He had less than a year and he couldn't predict the future. Of course, George Bush was in office for a year when this happened. If you think Clinton should have acted why do you not point the finger at Bush also? The man had time enough to act.

Clinton had 8 years to act after numerous attacks. I don't point the finger at Bush because he went after terrorists in his first year. It was also his first year. I'm not gonna blame a president for not going to war in his first year, without an imminent threat. Clinton spent 8 years not doing anything. Yeah, Clinton was going to go to war against terrorism in his last year. :roll: He should have done it after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.


But you present them. I do not see any "works cited" so I credit you.

Look it up yourself if you're so anxious. I've made this arguement numerous times and I get tired of having to make it again.


You said force is sometimes nessecary. So I assumed that you were talking about the very topic which you were quoting, which happens to be about North Korea. I gave you a response, and it seems you don't like it so I guess it's not about that now.

I have no idea what you mean. Could you rephrase that?


Force was nessecary? And who are you to say that? The United Nations said that UN Weapons Inspectors were doing their job and yet you seem to believe that you have all the answers. If the UN said that force wasn't nessecary I tend to believe them.

I don't believe I have all the answers. The U.N. barely does anything to combat the real threats. The inspectors were doing their job, inspecting. Iraq was not doing their job by not listening to the U.N. You have to remember that the U.N. is full of contradictions. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission. Syria is on the Security Council. The U.N. is ruled by Arab and European nations. Arab nations are not supportive of attacking other Arab nations or any U.S. actions and European nations are fooling themselves by thinking actions can now all be resolved peacefully. The U.N. uses force after it's necessary, not when it's necessary.

[Kyuu]

Let me ask you this:

What would you rather have dominating the world? American Foreign Policy, or European Foreign Policy?

[Gundam08]

I'd like to know how this is a joke. Even as a joke it wasn't very good at all.

Oh get over yourself man.


First of all, are you afraid of Bush? Second, I believe every president thinks that and may have said that.

First of all, I am afraid of Bush. Second, I believe that if every president is going to think that, they shouldn't annouce it on CNN.


Clinton had 8 years to act after numerous attacks. I don't point the finger at Bush because he went after terrorists in his first year. It was also his first year. I'm not gonna blame a president for not going to war in his first year, without an imminent threat. Clinton spent 8 years not doing anything. Yeah, Clinton was going to go to war against terrorism in his last year. :roll: He should have done it after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Again, Clinton can't see the future. If he could have seen what was coming he would have acted, just like anyone else would have. No one knew something like that was coming, and if they did there was more than enough time for both presidents to act.


Look it up yourself if you're so anxious. I've made this arguement numerous times and I get tired of having to make it again.

I'm not anxious. I'm just saying that if you aren't going to tell me where you got any information I might as well award you with such a finding, I mean, rather than just making up a name.




You said force is sometimes nessecary. So I assumed that you were talking about the very topic which you were quoting, which happens to be about North Korea. I gave you a response, and it seems you don't like it so I guess it's not about that now.

I have no idea what you mean. Could you rephrase that?

Okay, I guess that is a bit confusing. Okay, what I meant by that was. We were talking about North Korea and how I thought it could be resolved with diplomacy. You came on and said something about force sometimes being nessecary. I assumed that you were referring to North Korea because you quoted me on it. But then you came on and got all mad at me because you said you weren't talking about the ver ything in which you quoted me on.


I don't believe I have all the answers. The U.N. barely does anything to combat the real threats. The inspectors were doing their job, inspecting. Iraq was not doing their job by not listening to the U.N. You have to remember that the U.N. is full of contradictions. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission. Syria is on the Security Council. The U.N. is ruled by Arab and European nations. Arab nations are not supportive of attacking other Arab nations or any U.S. actions and European nations are fooling themselves by thinking actions can now all be resolved peacefully. The U.N. uses force after it's necessary, not when it's necessary.

You sound like you have more answers than Bill Clinton, or even the entire liberal/moderate population of the United States.

[Nowhere_Man]

Clinton had 8 years to act after numerous attacks. I don't point the finger at Bush because he went after terrorists in his first year. It was also his first year. I'm not gonna blame a president for not going to war in his first year, without an imminent threat. Clinton spent 8 years not doing anything. Yeah, Clinton was going to go to war against terrorism in his last year. He should have done it after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

The people immediately responsible for the terrorists acts against the United States and her military were indeed apprehended, captured, tried, and convicted. I myself did not know that until a few weeks ago. Clinton and his cabinet did try to make terrorism a priority, but it was blocked by, shall I say, certain forces in this country. In case you can't figure out who I mean, think about who ran Congress for most of Clinton's presidency (*hint* it wasn't the Democrats). Bush's secretary of State met with soon-to-be NSA directer Condoliza Rice and warned her that terrorism was a growing problem and should be the number one foreign policy issue with the Bush administration. This was January 2001. The Bush administration was going to have a majority in the House, and could have pulled off enough votes in the Senate for a war on terror had they felt so inclined. They did not. Politics. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

Oh get over yourself man.

Get over myself? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. I'm not into myself. I am not overly self-loving.


First of all, I am afraid of Bush. Second, I believe that if every president is going to think that, they shouldn't annouce it on CNN.

At least he was honest. :D


Again, Clinton can't see the future. If he could have seen what was coming he would have acted, just like anyone else would have. No one knew something like that was coming, and if they did there was more than enough time for both presidents to act.

Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 7 months. Who do you think is more at fault?


I'm not anxious. I'm just saying that if you aren't going to tell me where you got any information I might as well award you with such a finding, I mean, rather than just making up a name.

So, in like manner, I can simply say that you're the one saying the WMDs were all on paper. Of course, I probably don't know, and never will know, this Republican you speak of, but you can always check the news sites like CNN, MSNBC, FNC, or any other news site you know and find what I'm talking about.


Okay, I guess that is a bit confusing. Okay, what I meant by that was. We were talking about North Korea and how I thought it could be resolved with diplomacy. You came on and said something about force sometimes being nessecary. I assumed that you were referring to North Korea because you quoted me on it. But then you came on and got all mad at me because you said you weren't talking about the ver ything in which you quoted me on.

You took what I said way out of context. I said the only way they'd change is by collapsing or being taken out by another nation, like the U.S. I never said I wanted an invasion. I said it will probably be almost the only way to resolve the issue. The only other way is through economic collapse. Neither are good, but that's how it will most definitely turn out. I see no other way out for them.

How about I simplify this for you.

Force is sometimes necessary.

I never said I wanted an invasion.


You sound like you have more answers than Bill Clinton, or even the entire liberal/moderate population of the United States.

You appear to be lumping me into the right wing and calling me a conservative. I have many problems with that.

For one, liberalism is not a left wing idealog, but a belief applicable to all sides. Also, I am not a conservative. In fact, conservatives aren't right wing either. Democrats are also incredibly conservative. Actually, Republicans seem to be more liberal than Democrats in many cases. Actually, I consider myself a moderate and not a conservative.

I also never said I have more answers than Bill Clinton or any group, but that I have just as many right answers for things they have wrong answers for. I agree with Democrats on certain issues, but I don't agree with either side's attack politics. First of all, I think that ad saying the Democrats were attacking Bush for attacking terrorists was not very nice at all, but it was even worse when the Democrats cry "Foul!" and act like they don't do it either is stupid. I would actually love to see Hillary as president for many reasons. For one, it would be nice to see the first woman president and I bet Democrats would love to see it be a Democrat. Second, she has shown herself to be incredibly loyal to Bill Clinton, in spite of all problems. It is very important to have a loyal president. I don't agree with some of her views, but that is only natural.

Of course, if Rudy Guiliani ran, I'd like to see him win. :D


What would you rather have dominating the world? American Foreign Policy, or European Foreign Policy?

American foreign policy is that we attack, but not just in retalition, but whenever a nation poses a threat, but European foreign policy is turning into the be-nice-and-no-one-will-hurt-you-policy. They can be good, but not all the time.


The people immediately responsible for the terrorists acts against the United States and her military were indeed apprehended, captured, tried, and convicted.

Yeah, that's gonna help. :roll:


Clinton and his cabinet did try to make terrorism a priority, but it was blocked by, shall I say, certain forces in this country. In case you can't figure out who I mean, think about who ran Congress for most of Clinton's presidency (*hint* it wasn't the Democrats). Bush's secretary of State met with soon-to-be NSA directer Condoliza Rice and warned her that terrorism was a growing problem and should be the number one foreign policy issue with the Bush administration. This was January 2001. The Bush administration was going to have a majority in the House, and could have pulled off enough votes in the Senate for a war on terror had they felt so inclined. They did not. Politics. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

That doesn't mean Clinton couldn't have done it. Besides, that still means that Clinton didn't make it a priority until 1994, but Bush was pursuing to make it a priority at the beginning of his administration. Maybe the Republicans didn't want to have a war on terror. Of course, that would make them look less like the war mongers they're stereotyped as. Besides, Congress didn't want Bush to go to war against Iraq, but he still did.

[Nowhere_Man]

That doesn't mean Clinton couldn't have done it. Besides, that still means that Clinton didn't make it a priority until 1994, but Bush was pursuing to make it a priority at the beginning of his administration. Maybe the Republicans didn't want to have a war on terror. Of course, that would make them look less like the war mongers they're stereotyped as. Besides, Congress didn't want Bush to go to war against Iraq, but he still did.

1. Yes, it does mean Clinton couldn't have done it, especailly with all of his stupid personal acts that the media and everyone else jumped on.

2. Terrorism was not a real threat to America before 1994; we were funding today's terrorists to fight communism. With communism mostly gone by 1992-3, empty American promises to various groups in other countries led to a rise of anti-americanism, and thus began modern terrorism. Since, then, it has grown stronger and more global, as can be evidenced by the first bombing of the wtc, the embassy bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite growing concerns here and abroad, the threat was not taken very seriously. Serious action against terrorism was opposed by many members of both parties (particularly the one starting with the 'R'), and no large-scale operations could take place. Small-scale operations took place, including the apprehension of all those immediately responsible for the various attacks. The American public returned to its normal apathy and stupor. As 2001 began, the "lame-duck" presidential administration began debriefing the incoming Bush administration. They showed a large amount of concern over the exponentially-growing problem of terrorism, and warned that it should be Priority #1. Bush had 8+ months to act, during which he had a majority in the stronger house and a tie in the weaker, as well as bipartisan support for many of his programs (i.e. tax cuts). To be honest, I think the reason why neither president took direct action is because Americans don't give a damn unless it's on our own turf and there are large casualty rates. Pearl Harbor. Mexican War (well, it wasn't REALLY our turf, but we said it was), Spanish-American War (we'd considered Cuba a loss child for a while), Gulf of Tonkin, etc etc. The American public would not have rallied behind a war with an enemy who did not have a definite base, had not actually threatened their lives, and who weren't on the media a lot. I don't blame Bush for what happened, nor Clinton, nor do I blame them for not taking action beforehand. Their hands were largely tied. And it's a damned shame.

[Gundam08]

Get over myself? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. I'm not into myself. I am not overly self-loving.

You seem to be very into putting me and my "lack" of a sense of humor down.


At least he was honest. :D

Oh God... the one thing I don't want him to be honest about.


Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 7 months. Who do you think is more at fault?

I highly doubt that Clinton knew the extent of terrorism when he first came into office. He may have known the last year and a half, but he was busy trying to pass a plan that could give everyone Healthcare. If I was president an idle threat of terrorism would not take priority over getting healthcare to every American. Without fully knowing the potential that Bin Laden possessed than almost no one would act. And if it was known what Bin Laden could do, 7 months was more than enough time to prepare.


So, in like manner, I can simply say that you're the one saying the WMDs were all on paper. Of course, I probably don't know, and never will know, this Republican you speak of, but you can always check the news sites like CNN, MSNBC, FNC, or any other news site you know and find what I'm talking about.

Oh, so I'm supposed to go on those websites and find a specific statistic and give credit to the guy that got that statistic? I don't think so. If you want me to do that, I'd like you too google some of my comments and tell me who said them.


You took what I said way out of context. I said the only way they'd change is by collapsing or being taken out by another nation, like the U.S. I never said I wanted an invasion. I said it will probably be almost the only way to resolve the issue. The only other way is through economic collapse. Neither are good, but that's how it will most definitely turn out. I see no other way out for them.


How about I simplify this for you.

Force is sometimes necessary.

I never said I wanted an invasion.

If I say:

"Howard Dean is a god. I hate his guts."

The first sentance I was talking about Howard Dean. The second sentance I was talking about Bush. Did you know that? I doubt you did. You can't expect me to read your mind just as I don't expect you to read mine. Oh and btw, I don't think Howard Dean is a god I just said that because I couldn't think of anyone else to put down.

Anyway, back to the topic. You say that economic collapse was one way to bring an end to North Korea. My one suggestion was to bring that to happen, but you dissagreed, and I believe right after said something about force sometimes being nessecary. Yes, this is true, but I also assumed you meant in the situation you were just talking about. See my confusion in this matter?



You appear to be lumping me into the right wing and calling me a conservative. I have many problems with that.

For one, liberalism is not a left wing idealog, but a belief applicable to all sides. Also, I am not a conservative. In fact, conservatives aren't right wing either. Democrats are also incredibly conservative. Actually, Republicans seem to be more liberal than Democrats in many cases. Actually, I consider myself a moderate and not a conservative.

I also never said I have more answers than Bill Clinton or any group, but that I have just as many right answers for things they have wrong answers for. I agree with Democrats on certain issues, but I don't agree with either side's attack politics. First of all, I think that ad saying the Democrats were attacking Bush for attacking terrorists was not very nice at all, but it was even worse when the Democrats cry "Foul!" and act like they don't do it either is stupid. I would actually love to see Hillary as president for many reasons. For one, it would be nice to see the first woman president and I bet Democrats would love to see it be a Democrat. Second, she has shown herself to be incredibly loyal to Bill Clinton, in spite of all problems. It is very important to have a loyal president. I don't agree with some of her views, but that is only natural.

Of course, if Rudy Guiliani ran, I'd like to see him win. :D

You seem to hate everything liberal/Democrat. I haven't seen you say one good thing about anyone but Bush or Reagan. What am I supposed to think?


That doesn't mean Clinton couldn't have done it. Besides, that still means that Clinton didn't make it a priority until 1994, but Bush was pursuing to make it a priority at the beginning of his administration. Maybe the Republicans didn't want to have a war on terror. Of course, that would make them look less like the war mongers they're stereotyped as. Besides, Congress didn't want Bush to go to war against Iraq, but he still did.

It doesn't mean he couldn't have, but it also doesn't mean he could have.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

You seem to be very into putting me and my "lack" of a sense of humor down.

I never said you lack a sense of humor. I'm not trying to put you down.


I highly doubt that Clinton knew the extent of terrorism when he first came into office. He may have known the last year and a half, but he was busy trying to pass a plan that could give everyone Healthcare. If I was president an idle threat of terrorism would not take priority over getting healthcare to every American. Without fully knowing the potential that Bin Laden possessed than almost no one would act. And if it was known what Bin Laden could do, 7 months was more than enough time to prepare.

Bill Clinton said he told Bush that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to America. Now, if Clinton thought that, why not attack? He was also offered Osama three times and never accepted.


Oh, so I'm supposed to go on those websites and find a specific statistic and give credit to the guy that got that statistic? I don't think so. If you want me to do that, I'd like you too google some of my comments and tell me who said them.

Maybe you should stop telling me to back up my arguements without doing likewise.


Anyway, back to the topic. You say that economic collapse was one way to bring an end to North Korea. My one suggestion was to bring that to happen, but you dissagreed, and I believe right after said something about force sometimes being nessecary. Yes, this is true, but I also assumed you meant in the situation you were just talking about. See my confusion in this matter?

I was saying that you can not likely change them through peaceful means in enough time. Your statement was instigating peaceful revolution, but I don't see that really happening yet or in the near future. The most likely possibility is economic collapse through isolation.


You seem to hate everything liberal/Democrat. I haven't seen you say one good thing about anyone but Bush or Reagan. What am I supposed to think?

I'm not here to defend Democrats and you, nce again, use the word liberal improperly. Liberalism is not a left wing matter or Democrat matter exclusively. It is a belief on both sides of the political spectrum. You should look at my opinions on all issues and not who I defend. I've shown that my opinion is very moderate on most issues. I merely defend Bush because there are very few intelligent arguements or, at least, truthful arguements here against Bush.


Terrorism was not a real threat to America before 1994

The WTC bombing was before 1994. Besides, terrorism was a big threat, but not from international groups. However, the more than 200 dead people in Beirut should have been a signal to everyone that even the U.S. military is not safe from terrorism so mainland America probably isn't either. It wasn't a well-known threat though.


The American public would not have rallied behind a war with an enemy who did not have a definite base, had not actually threatened their lives, and who weren't on the media a lot. I don't blame Bush for what happened, nor Clinton, nor do I blame them for not taking action beforehand.

I know, but my point at the beginning was that Bush shouldn't be blamed for many things he's blamed for. Things such as, the recession, 9-11, and the intifada are blamed on Bush, but my point with that was that Clinton did have far more opportunities to prevent these things, but it still happened. George H.W. Bush was also responsible, as was Reagan.

[Nowhere_Man]

Since we're having some confusion over what is liberal and what is conservative...

By modern definitions, a conservative believes that government should not be involved in economics, but they believe it should be involved in social affairs by managing and controlling society. They also tend to give the military more spending, while cutting social programs, or trying to remove social programs from the government. Conservatives follow a "do-it-yourself" method and don't believe in welfare for poor people or the unemployed. They are against hate crime legislation, abortion, contraceptives, sex-ed in public schools, affirmative action and gay rights. They are for the war on drugs, sodomy laws, and free businesses. Another note on the businesses: often times, conservatives will bail out failing businesses with something similar to welfare (see airline industries)

Liberals believe the government should not control society's structure, but they do believe it should regulate business to some extent (depending on the liberal). They tend to cut the military's budget and spend more for social programs. Liberals (in America) tend to follow a "help others while they're down" and although they aren't as socialistic as Europe or Canada, they still support a wellfare system. They are for hate crime legislation, abortion rights to a certain extent, sex-ed in public schools, affirmative action to some extent, gay rights, and de-criminalizing certain "victimless" crimes. They are against sodomy laws, businesses with no government regulations, and more stuff that I don't have time to post cause it's almost time for school.

Libertarians believe in no government intervention in both areas (liberal socially, conservative economically)

Populists believe in government intervention everywhere (liberal economically, conservative socially)

Thanks to my AP U.S. Government and Politics class for the information.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

What confusion? I'm not confused. I know exactly what a liberal and conservative is. The definitions you gave are not "modern", but changed. That is not their real meaning. I think you should only use that word for political parties of that name and not otherwise. Conservativism is a belief that change shouldn't happen, which is common among the left and right in certain respects. Liberalism is the belief that change should be constant and not restricted. I'm using the definitions I see in the dictionary, not some rhetoric you heard in Government class. People use those words to imply the right hates change and the left loves it, but this is far from the truth.

I'm not confused. I'm not using or ever will seriously use your definitions.

[Nowhere_Man]

What confusion? I'm not confused. I know exactly what a liberal and conservative is. The definitions you gave are not "modern", but changed. That is not their real meaning. I think you should only use that word for political parties of that name and not otherwise. Conservativism is a belief that change shouldn't happen, which is common among the left and right in certain respects. Liberalism is the belief that change should be constant and not restricted. I'm using the definitions I see in the dictionary, not some rhetoric you heard in Government class. People use those words to imply the right hates change and the left loves it, but this is far from the truth.

I'm not confused. I'm not using or ever will seriously use your definitions.

oh you want THOSE definitions. Well that's different. I was using their modern meanings, not the dictionary definitions. What is liberal and conservative changes every few decades. If you have a problem with my explanations, you can take it up with The United States government, the Education Testing Service, the Princeton Review, as well as every government school textbook in use and their respective companies.

The dictionary definitions "conservative" and "liberal" are different than their political counterparts. I thought someone with your intelligence would realize that. The dictionary definitions you gave are indeed correct; however, the modern usage of political ideologies is as I stated above. Personally, I dislike the term "conservative" and "liberal" to define the ideologies, but that is what they are, regardless of what you call them. Economically, you can make it Communism (technically "far left") vs. Neo-liberalism (technically "far right"), Authoritarian (defies categorizing as either liberal or conservative; both groups have their share of these) vs. Anarchy (technically no one is a full anarchist, so the closest definition is libertarianism; again, both groups fall here). You could also break up the groups as "freedom vs. order" and "freedom vs. equality." All of these are accepted standards for finding one's politcal ideology on a so-called "political compass". I will atempt to find the sites where I have tested to find my politcal compass and post them here in an edit on this post or in a later post.

[Lord of the Pikachu]

I understand they have different political definitions, but I think their use is more like slang than proper political terms, but that isn't surprising. Ain't is a word in the dictionary, but it is slang and certainly not proper English. I've used the word, but I try to avoid using the words at all unless I'm using their definition in the dictionary. I would really like to know who chose those words to mean those political views. I'm similar to you in that I know they're probably never gonna stop being used that way, but I just hate using the words at all.

[astronut78]

Can we say redundant debate? This same debate is raging in 3 other threads...