[quote]JeffR wrote:
Nthnbeachesguy,
I believe the main thrust of your first post was to try to educate Americans on how some people view the United States. Let me educate you on how some of us Americans view “those” people. We wonder at the true motives behind the demonstrations. We have a hard time believing that anyone would demonstrate against removing Saddam. We wonder at anyone who “is worried about Bush hanging around” when we have invested $125,000,000,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are rebuilding schools. We are rebuilding hospitals. We are going to transfer power to the Iraqi Government in a few weeks. We have even given them veto power over OUR MILITARY OPERATIONS!!! The, we will leave. That, my friend, is not a bully. [quote]
Ok Jeff point taken, America has invested a heap of money into Iraq, bravo, they blew the place up and now they are paying to rebuild it. What exactly do u consider the true motives behind anti war demonstrations??? It has long been said that the american economy needs a war every few years to keep it ticking over healthily. I dont recall anyone protesting against the removal of Saddam, i think they were protesting against the way it was done. I agree with u on that people who whinge and complain about something without a solution are a part of the problem.
Sometimes force is required, now that the original objective has been achieved Australians want the troops back, our effort befitting our stature in world power, fairly small.
[quote]That is our history. We trample the foe. We rebuild their infrastructure. We leave. That does not warrant the sort of response you describe. Did you know that we provide sixty percent of the free aid to the entire planet each year? SIXTY PERCENT!!!
Please name me a true imperialist country that has ever done these things. In the history of the world, we are the first. What would the Romans, Greeks, or the English have done at the height of their power? They would have destroyed, reposessed, and exploited the region without regard. They would never have left. They would have used Iraq’s oil to pay for their efforts. Are we doing this? No.[quote]
Rebuild the infrastructure??? That could be taken with a grain of salt, if it suits it will be done i suppose. 60% of the free aid??? Can u please go into some detail as to what constitutes free aid and where u came across these figures. Statistics are remarkably well adapted to suit a particular cause at any time. If it is in fact true, thats great but it is probably in line with what america takes advantage of world wide. I think there is some scepticism towards the true aims behind where america puts its money, i personally dont see it as being purely humanitarian, more economically driven i think. There is a lot of other places in the world that could benefit from purely humanitarian point of view but i dont see american involvement maybe because unlike Iraq there is no commercial benefit at the end. Sure there is a showpiece of purely humanitarian aid but as the name implies, its for show.
BTW this is a question i dont know the answer to, what, if any aid was given to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki???
[quote]Americans also wonder why other countries do not lead. When there is an obvious problem (Saddam), why didn’t France lead? The entire globe looks to us in times of crisis. Then, they protest against our solutions.
Americans also shake our heads at the hypocrisy of some of these countries that people call the “international community” (France, Germany, Russia). Do you have any idea how many lives were lost in conflicts involving these three in the past 100 years? They invented the word imperialism. Do you know how many people died under their oppressive yokes?[quote]
Yes i have a very good idea of how much suffering there was under these particular regimes, u forgot to mention China and Mao ze dong (spelling) if u want a more complete modern history of suffering. Why do other countries not lead u ask??? France in the last hundred years isnt what one would call a particularly successful military nation, Germany the same for the last 50 years and Russia is a shadow of her former self with too many internal issues to deal with before looking at the worlds problems.
The balance of power in the world has changed and it is in my opinion now a contest between China and the US, China having taken the place of the USSR. Australia is no position to lead an intervention in that part of the world for obvious reasons. We have our own problems here too, dealing with issues much closer to home such as East Timor, civil unrest throughout Indo and Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands amongst others. The threat of terrorism to Australia originates in these areas much closer to home as witnessed by the Bali bombings and i think ppl would rather have our troops doing something about that threat than over in M.E participating in what is percieved by many to be americas war for cheap “gas”.
[quote]I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Australian fighting man/woman. I am thankful that your government has stood by us when others ran away. I have a friendly suggestion, please read my original post to you. That should contain all the impetus needed to support your government’s efforts in Iraq. If it doesn’t, then I will be unable to persuade you.
[/quote]
I not quite sure what ur trying to convince me of Jeff , all i brought to the table were some outside perspectives of how a lot of Australians viewed the current situation and now it has become a personal issue of convincing me that the US is right. All i want u to acknowledge is that america does act regularly in overseas issues where it stands to gain economically, that is basically indisputable.