Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Hus-lus]

The USA is very powerfull militarly, BUT doesnt give them the right to fight against innocent people that are living in the countries they want to destroy.
The war between Israel and Lebanon is very painfull and USA allow and support Israel in order to continue the war.
The USA should worry about and take care of their own citizens, instead of meddling in other countries.

[flying_pig319]

[ieltsinsider]

Which countries is America trying to destroy? It's these kind of silly comments that create problems!

the USA 'meddles' in other countries' affairs. So what? Every country meddles in the affairs of every other country. It's called diplomacy and trade, not just 'meddling' or war.

[knowledge2006]

[ieltsinsider]

Knowledge2006 - Sorry, I just don't know what your point is. If America wants oil from Iraq, wouldn't it be sensible to have a stable government there? Any businessman with the slightest sense knows that if you want to make money from oil, you don't want war or destruction going on.

If America is in Iraq just for oil, so what? The American economy depends on oil. Every single country in the world will fight for core values and needs. You are guilty of judging America by one standard and everyone else by another.

As for the 100,000 victims, remember that most of them have been killed by Muslims who oppose freedom, not by Americans.

You still haven't told us which countries America is trying to destroy.

[flying_pig319]

[ieltsinsider]

Why did the Americans go in? Because they are the ones able to do it. No other country has the military capability to do that. Other countries which rely on oil also added troops - Britain, Australia, Spain, South Korea, etc.

[flying_pig319]

[k.m.m]

[k.m.m]

[ieltsinsider]

k.m.m. - You say that a country that doesn't have oil shouldn't occupy a country that has it. Well, depends what you mean by 'occupy' first. The elected leaders of Iraq haven't asked the Americans to pack up and leave ... Besides, the Americans have clearly stated that they will leave when the violence dies down. British forces recently withdrew from a whole Iraqi province because violence there has dropped. The fastest way to get the Americans out of Iraqis for insurgents to stop fighting. Ask the people living in the northern part of Iraq, the Kurdish part. Big area, lots of people, lots of oil, almost no violence. At this point, also bear in mind that many insurgents are not Iraqis! Perhaps that's why they are not interested in peace.

Also, in response to Knowledge2006, I did say 'if'. I don't think that the Americans are in Iraq just for oil. After all, America has plenty of its own oil and the place they import from most is Canada. Oil is sold on a world market and, like any other product, people will sell to the highest bidder. Given that America is pretty wealthy, when oil supplies drop, the first country to lose big will not be America, it'll be poorer countries without oil.

As for Russia and China, yeah, they would certainly 'occupy' a country if a) they needed its oil and b) they had the military to do it. My point was that all countries act in the same way (unfortunately). Its lovely to say, oh yeah, I wish that ... but in the end, that's not the way the real world operates. Russia and China are both supporting Iran. Why? Oil! Don't just blame the Americans! Which major country supports the Sudanese government, currently murdering hundreds of civilians every day in Darfur (far more than are dying in Iraq)? The answer is China. What is China's main import from Sudan? Oil!

You ask if we are in a jungle. Yes, we are. And I for one would rather have the Americans (imperfect as they are) as the lord of the jungle instead of China, Iran, or Osama bin Laden.

The American government and American soldiers have certainly made mistakes and, as you point out, there have been some really ugly incidents. Unfortunately, fighting is like that. Ask the Iraqis. They know more about it than most people after suffering under Saddam for years. The rape of the girl in Haditha was a disgrace and I hope the soldiers that did it get what they deserve, but I hope that you also bear in mind that Uday Hussein, Saddam's son, was a serial rapist before the Americans ended the terror he brought to women.

Finally, I repeat my previous answer. Anyone with the slightest business knowledge knows that for oil production you need a stable country. You accuse America of wanting oil AND wanting an unstable country. How does that work?

[Manuel]

You have a very twisted point of view.
It�s really disgusting to hear people like you defending a group of murderers who follow their money incstint.
For you, war is justified by the needs of a nation. I see that�s the same line of thoughts that the USA have been following along this years.That�s a terrible opinion.
I�ll be happy the day when fascists goverments and its supporters have disappeared.
Please, read some of the UN humans rights, some books of moral, something about international laws like the Drago Doctrine, grow a little bit of love to humanity and try to be a simple human-minded person.

[ieltsinsider]

I don't think my point of view is twisted - just realistic. Some people live in a fantasy world where everyone is really like cool and nice to everyone and everyone is like having this great big world party and having fun and we all love each other. Nice fantasy. Totally unrealistic.

I totally agree that we humans need to completely rethink our attitudes - to our fellow humans, to the environment, and to doing the right thing. My point is that people seem to constantly blame the West (and the Americans in particular) when the reality is that this goes on all over the world caused by people of all nationalities.

Another problem, which Manuel exemplified perfectly in his comment "You think war is justified by the needs of a nation" is that people make generalisations that fail to take into account reality. There are cases in history that demonstrate quite clearly that war is sometimes the only option - World war 2 being the classic.

[Manuel]

I�m not unrealistic, but I don�t understand why do we have to accept a nasty reality which is being justyfied by you with the argument of:"Why did the Americans go in? Because they are the ones able to do it." Wonderful, simply wonderful, so, let�s allow them to do whatever they want because they have the power.
You see, Humanity has to understand that peace is the priority, not money. Money cannot replace the lives which are lost in war.
Allowing the USA or any other country to enter a territory following their economical interests is allowing the existance of a world that can be manipulated without anybody�s opposition. And that would be very sad ; it would turn into an international dictatorship.
Knowing its existance, as you say, is correct. Allowing its continuity in tiranic power is unacceptable.

[ieltsinsider]

And the alternative is what?
You can't rely on the UN because each member state simply follows its own interests and they can't agree.
Would you prefer China or Russia went in? How would that be better?
Would you prefer that Saddam were still the Iraqi leader, gassing people he didn't like?
Would you prefer the Americans deposed Saddam and then just left a vacuum in Iraq, leading to everyone grabbing a gun?
Would you prefer that Saddam were replaced by his serial rapist son, Uday?

It's so trendy to criticise America without coming up with alternatives except "Hey, man, everyone should live in peace!"

OK, let's look at this from a different angle. Knowledge2006 says that the Americans didn't go into Iraq to spread peace. Manuel, it seems that you too are concerned about having peace in the world. C'mon everyone, do a little research. Name a war that has ever taken place between two full democracies.