xxx, you shouldn't armchair quarterback when your team isn't even on the field.

__________________
95 M3
03 X5 3.0
06 X3 3.0 Sport

I believe the USA is trying to do a noble thing by helping the people in Iraq. I have a question for “blame USA first” crowd.
In your opinion, when has the US ever done anything good in the world?

We do lots of good things around the world...

First of all, we give more to the UN than any other country. Contrary to popular belief, 90+% of what the UN does has nothing to do with peace-keeping or military ventures. Organizations such as UNICEF do tons of good around the world. Whenever there are terrible wars, like the ones in Africa during the 1990s, the UN delivers relief supplies and opens refugee camps to help displaced people. Back in the winter of 2001 when we invaded Afghanistan, the UN helped to feed hundreds of thousands of people who would have otherwise starved to death. A good share of the money that pays for all of that, and a good share of the actual supplies themselves, comes courtesy of the United States.

We are also usually the first country to give aid in the event of natural disasters, and we usually send relief workers to help in whatever the situation is. At least this was the case during msot of the 20th Century.

We have launched more satellites into orbit than any other country, by far, and these satellites are used by countries throughout the world. Without them, television and other communications would not be the same.

The "blame America crowd" (as you call them) only objects to military actions. The purpose of the military is to kill, and some of us object to killing as a general principle. Obviously a military is needed to defend the country from foreign attack. But unfortunately that is not what our military has been used for over the past 60 years. Instead, it has been used to secure (i.e. steal, conquer) natural resources, overthrow governments, and in general to pursue a policy of forcing the rest of the world to alter their economies to our "free market" capitalism model regardless of whether or not the people of these places want this type of system.

The purpose of the military should have nothing to do with pursuing economic policy and should be for defense purposes only. Just as is the case with 99% of the countries on the planet, we should not have a single soldier outside of our borders except when they are needed for a UN action.

It's funny how we have military bases in over 130 countries, but when any other country on the planet moves some of their soldiers to another country, even when they are invited by that government, our leaders cry foul, even when that country is their next-door neighbor.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Eric,
You mentioned invading Afghanistan. Do you think that removing the Taliban was a good thing or did we have no business there?

I think it was a good thing, but I also think the reasons they chose to do it were purely economic and were not what was advertised. Kind of like when a rich person donates money to a charity because their accountant tells them they need to in order for their bottom line to come out better. Yes, it's good, but no I do not praise them for it.

One just has to look at all the military and economic aid the Bush Administration gave to the Taliban in the first half of 2001 (over $120 million) to realize their true motives. If the Taliban had cooperated with UNOCAL and GE over building that oil pipeline instead of contracting with Bridas, they would still be in power today, they would still be fueling terrorism, they would still be committing attrocities on their own people, and they would most likely be doing this with the endorsement and large amounts of economic/military aid from the United States.

Yes, every once in a while our government's sinister and selfish economically motivated foreign policy does indeed fall in line with what is "good" for the people of the world. But more times than not, the exact opposite is the case -- read Chile, Brazil, Congo, Guatamala, Iran, Venezuela and I'm sure a few more I cannot think of -- all countries in which US foreign policy dictated the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in favor of a dictatorship, sometime in the past 60 years.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Fair enough. We agree the world is better off with the Taliban out of power, but I think the US is neither sinister nor selfish. Germany democratically elected Adolf Hitler , and then he needed a little breathing room. So we eventually partnered up with Stalin. You keep reading the conspiracy theories on the far left websites and I’ll keep watching the O’Reilly Factor and we’ll agree to disagree. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Germany did not elect Adolf Hitler. He ran for President twice -- in 1928 and in 1932, and lost both times.

With regard to "conspiracy theories", what are you referring to? I didn't post anything about any conspiracy theories in this thread. The stuff about UNOCAL and Bridas is no conspiracy theory. It's stuff that was being reported by the mainstream press...

BBC: Taliban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

Washington Post: Gas Pipeline Bounces Between Agendas

Unocol, Bridas wooing Taliban for $4.5bn Pak gas pipeline

BBC: Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline

Oil barons court Taliban in Texas

And you'll notice that most of these articles are dated BEFORE 2001, so no "conspiracy theories" here, just plan old facts.

Same with the millions of dollars of aid given by the Bush Administration to the Taliban. No conspiracy theories here...

CNN: U.S. gives $43 million to Afghanistan - May 17, 2001

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...