Is the USA a bully?

by Robdar 83 Replies latest jw friends

  • Stan Conroy
    Stan Conroy

    This is my opinion:

    From the viewpoint of a non-American, I would say that yes, the US does seem to be the world's bully. And a selfish one at that. Why does the US stick it's nose in some world affairs while ignoring the rest?

    Kuwait 1991 = oil: get involved

    Iraq 2003=oil: get involved

    Cambodia 1975(ish)= proven no-win situation in Vietnam: don't get involved

    numerous civil wars in Africa (perpetual)= nothing to gain: don't get involved

    There are more examples, but you get the point. Now as far as history goes, the US has a tendancy to seek glory where it is not deserved. Look at WW2 and the liberation of Rome. The Canadian army did the work, then were ordered by the US to stand down while US troops rolled in and took the glory. But yes, the US was necessary to defeat Germany in 1945. In WW1 the Canadian army was a major factor in defeat of the Germans at Somme, Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Pashendale etc. but the US history portrays the American armies entrance to WW1 in 1917 as the factor in the defeat of Germany. The statistics prove this to be wrong.

    I don't disagree that the US is a necessary evil as LB elludes to. But don't be so surprised that the rest of the world doesn't like you. Even your closest friend to the north tolerates you, maybe even needs you, but we don't really like you.


  • teejay

    In his State of the Union speech, Bush targeted both N Korea and Iraq as members of the so-called Axis of Evil.

    Iraq is accused of having nuclear capability and demands are made to allow U.N. inspectors in. Even though Iraq complies with every single demand that's made on it, the U.S. continues a massive military build-up in preparation for war, with or without support from other countries.

    N Korea thumbs its nose at Bush and his provocative statements. N Korea is KNOWN to have a nuclear arms program and recently expelled U.N. inspectors. Bush says that he's optimistic that an agreement can be reached without military intervention.

  • bigboi

    We have to deal very cautiously with the North Koreans, because not only can they nuke our West Coast, but they can also nuke Japan and South Korea and maybe some of it's island neighbors.

    It's all about risk and damage control. Go after Iraq, get rid of Saddam and you probably won't have a major destabilization of the Mid-East. If you attack N. Korea there will be a major destabilization of the Pacific region. With all the trade we have tied to China, Japan and other Pacific nations a nuclear flare up would probably have all types of costly ramifications for the US.

  • no one
    no one


    It was merely speculation. But it is hard to imagine that Saddam doesn't seek some sort of revenge for the Gulf War or, better yet, the 'no fly' zone that protects the Kurds and others in his own country opposed to Saddam's government from missile strikes from Saddam.

    Let's suppose that the Russians in the 50's decided that they didn't like how the US was treating the 'black' populace at that time and set up a 'no fly' zone over a section of the US to give those being persucuted by the policies of said government added protection. Or the Indians before them. As a country, the US would be willing to do whatever to throw off such domination. Can't see where it's any different for Iraq.

    This does not mean I approve of how Saddam is treating some of his own people, but who made the US the world's police that they (with their own historical past) have the right to interfere? I would like to believe that it is because as a nation, the US has moved beyond such barbarism. But, in reality(as was the case with interrogating potential terrorists after 911), instead of the US torturing prisoners to gain information(forbidden by US conscience and law), they simply shipped them off to Egypt where torture for info is the norm.

  • freedom96

    The idea behind attacking Saddam is to get to him BEFORE he gets his hands on nukes. One day I think we will want to thank those who made the decision to rid the world of Saddam and those like him. If we didn't, maybe we would not be around to enjoy our children or grandchildren, or other friends and family.

  • musky

    No, The U.S. is not a bully.

  • JH

    There is OIL in Iraq. Yes the US needs that for it's economy. There is no oil in North Korea.

    The US cannot make war on 2 fronts at the same time. NO WAY

    Thats why there are not doing much military talking for North Korea

    North Korea has over 1 million troups at the border with South Korea. It would take 6 months for the US just to get 200,000 troups there to defend the South Korea. And like you said Robdar, they also have a coupe of Nuclear weapons.

    The US is not all bad and not all good.

  • aojumper

    I am with you LB. People in this country are so quick to express their pacifist opinions, to cry foul, when the only reason they can do that is because of the freedom this country allows. I think they need to use some of their energy and imagination to stop and see what it would be like to live in a communist country for a week or two. Do you think that most of the people supporting Saddam, do it cause they believe he is the best leader? NO! They do it because they are terrified. Think of the horror you felt rying to leave the witnesses, the prospect of losing your social life, your family, friends, and mentors, and your good name. Then think of losing your life, and possibly being tortured before you recieve the relief of death.

    There are some terrific Films out there that even though they are hollywood-ized (Thirteen Days, The Atomic Cafe, The Siege), can show you what goes on in the mind of a leader of a country, and those trying to protect it. Especially ours. WE are not just trying to protect our freedom, we are trying to protect innocent lives. If you think Bush is up there with some emotional cause to finish what his father started, just remember who our last president was, think about how little he did to protect our country and our troops. Pause to think, when bin Laden bombed our embassy in africa, and attacked the USS Cole, Clinton, took the pacifist route instead of trying to rid the world of a known terrorist. Would the Twin Towers still be standing if he had taken more decisive action?

    We think, and probably rightly so, that everyone deserves the same freedom equally. That's all well and good, but there are those who abuse this freedom, and need to have it removed, ie; in the case of a criminal. Do we just shrug our shouldrs and say, "well as long as it doesn't affect me...". No, because eventually it will effect you. You think we should just let Saddam go about his business. That it's about oil. It's not, it's about power. As uncle Ben so aptly told Peter Parker "With great power comes great responsibilty". Saddam is misusing that responsibilty, to torture and kill people, not just for his own gain, but for his own entertainment. Whose the Bully?

    I feel for President Bush, He is doing a great job with what he inherited. Since Clinton's lethargic handling of world affairs, he has quite a mess to clean up. Is it being bullyish to protect a nation of innocents? Like LB said, "ask South Korea". Ask Japan. Ask those in North Korea as well, those that are not allowed to speak their mind, realize that these leaders use people as pawns, over here people can sign on to the military voluntarily (Vietnam Draft Excluded, but that's another issue entirely the U.S. is not fre from mistakes), and get tremendous benefits, and education, over in the country's we are trying to protect the world from, people undergo brainwashing ( you might know what that's like) and are forced to comply militarily, without the right to protest.

    The next rime you are doing soemthing relatively meaningless in the scheme of things, like trying to choose which spagettie sauce to buy in an acre sized grocery store full of choices between quality, quantity and prices, look for a veteran, look for a person in uniform, resolve to thank them for protecting your freedoms.


  • Robdar
    I don't disagree that the US is a necessary evil as LB elludes to. But don't be so surprised that the rest of the world doesn't like you. Even your closest friend to the north tolerates you, maybe even needs you, but we don't really like you

    Stan, thank you for adding the Canadian viewpoint. It's a shame that we have lost the respect of our friend and ally to the north.


    I always enjoy reading your opinion.

    It's all about risk and damage control.

    Bigboi, very good point. I am glad that you brought this up. Thank you for adding a balance to this thread.

    The idea behind attacking Saddam is to get to him BEFORE he gets his hands on nukes.

    Freedom 96, another good point. Thank you for your comments.

    No, The U.S. is not a bully.

    Musky, I hope not. I truly do.

    Thank you for posting.

    The US is not all bad and not all good.

    JH, this is so true. I hope that other countries remember this.

    Thank you for responding.


    Edited to add: Since I have reached my posting limit, I will have to respond to the rest of the posts later.

    Thank you all for your comments.

    Edited by - robdar on 1 January 2003 14:23:12

  • donkey


    Ever stop to consider that the war with Iraq has nothing to do with Saddam but is rather a play to destroy OPEC and the Saudis hold on the world oil supply? Why else is Saudi Arabia so opposed to it?

    If you look beyond the Iraqi war I think the insights are quite interesting.


Share this