Usa good or bad? The World?

[Tyson]

I need to throw out my opinion on whether USA's action against a country like Iraq is good or bad.
First of all let me say that I am a huge supporter of United States and everything they have done so far.
Why?
Heres why, I like to look at the world from a very basic point of view. For example "what are the 2 essential things we as humans need to survive?" Food and Water right? Third world countries are the countries which don't have a large supply of those 2 resources. A large percent of them are ruled by ruthless dictators such as Saadam Hussein (Iran, Syria, Bangladesh, North Korea etc...)
So... to summarize what I just said here is a list of all the problems I see today.

1. There are many world wide oganisations who recieve donations from generous people all over the world and some of them have proven to be fake (thats not to say that all of them are but there are some who pretend to be real and steal donations)

2. If I (canadian citizen) am to donate money to a person who goes to bed hungry every night "WHAT IS GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE ELSE DO THE EXACT SAME THING?" I know that one person can make a huge difference but one person is not enough if others are not going to follow.

3. If I do donate money it is likely to get "TAXED" on its way and that person will not recieve the full amount.

4. If some of that money gets there it is likely to be taken by the government (in a Third World Countries case it will be ceased by a ruthless leader and placed or exchanged for weaponry)

"But Tys? what the hell does all that have to do with United States?"

I'll get to that, heres my solution to everything and I am going to put this in a most basic paragraph. What I am about to say is calling upon major change which I doubt could ever be done but then again don't doubt anything which has the slightest possibility of being true

There is this huge gap between rich countries and poor countries, and people really don't seem to give a damn unless it affects their lifetime
As I've probably said this earlier, people need to start looking at todays world from a basic point of view. First of all I think that rich world countries should join in afcorse and make this huge donation organization which is controlled by all of them, Secondly since alot of people living in rich world countries don't care and probably don't know that one child dies everyday out of hunger or disease they should simply tax people on all the money they spend just enough to provide food and water for Third Wolrd countries.

Now about United States, what they did to Iraq did not appear to be justified I mean they didn't find any nuclear weapons or anything but heres the thing, they got rid of Saddam Hussein right? So getting rid of a ruthless leader means more food and water for the people of Iraq and it also means that there is a higher assurance of the donations getting there. So there you go United States has done only a 0.1111111 out of everything that needs to be done. Think about what would happen if all the rich powerful countries joined in and helped rid the world of poverty. Is it possible? Probably but it does call upon major change.

I know I've probably made alot of enemies by posting this but it is really not meant to cause a big argument just my theory and reason why I am such a big supporter of United States. There is probably more thats going on in the world today that an 18 year old kid has no clue about and I know I am probably wrong on most of the things I wrote in this post however like I said in the begining "I like to look at the world from a basic point of view" heh thnx for reading

-Tys

[Capital Knockers]

I need to throw out my opinion on whether USA's action against a country like Iraq is good or bad.
First of all let me say that I am a huge supporter of United States and everything they have done so far.
Why?
Heres why, I like to look at the world from a very basic point of view. For example "what are the 2 essential things we as humans need to survive?" Food and Water right? Third world countries are the countries which don't have a large supply of those 2 resources. A large percent of them are ruled by ruthless dictators such as Saadam Hussein (Iran, Syria, Bangladesh, North Korea etc...)
So... to summarize what I just said here is a list of all the problems I see today.

1. There are many world wide oganisations who recieve donations from generous people all over the world and some of them have proven to be fake (thats not to say that all of them are but there are some who pretend to be real and steal donations)

2. If I (canadian citizen) am to donate money to a person who goes to bed hungry every night "WHAT IS GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE ELSE DO THE EXACT SAME THING?" I know that one person can make a huge difference but one person is not enough if others are not going to follow.

3. If I do donate money it is likely to get "TAXED" on its way and that person will not recieve the full amount.

4. If some of that money gets there it is likely to be taken by the government (in a Third World Countries case it will be ceased by a ruthless leader and placed or exchanged for weaponry)

"But Tys? what the hell does all that have to do with United States?"

I'll get to that, heres my solution to everything and I am going to put this in a most basic paragraph. What I am about to say is calling upon major change which I doubt could ever be done but then again don't doubt anything which has the slightest possibility of being true

There is this huge gap between rich countries and poor countries, and people really don't seem to give a damn unless it affects their lifetime
As I've probably said this earlier, people need to start looking at todays world from a basic point of view. First of all I think that rich world countries should join in afcorse and make this huge donation organization which is controlled by all of them, Secondly since alot of people living in rich world countries don't care and probably don't know that one child dies everyday out of hunger or disease they should simply tax people on all the money they spend just enough to provide food and water for Third Wolrd countries.

Now about United States, what they did to Iraq did not appear to be justified I mean they didn't find any nuclear weapons or anything but heres the thing, they got rid of Saddam Hussein right? So getting rid of a ruthless leader means more food and water for the people of Iraq and it also means that there is a higher assurance of the donations getting there. So there you go United States has done only a 0.1111111 out of everything that needs to be done. Think about what would happen if all the rich powerful countries joined in and helped rid the world of poverty. Is it possible? Probably but it does call upon major change.

I know I've probably made alot of enemies by posting this but it is really not meant to cause a big argument just my theory and reason why I am such a big supporter of United States. There is probably more thats going on in the world today that an 18 year old kid has no clue about and I know I am probably wrong on most of the things I wrote in this post however like I said in the begining "I like to look at the world from a basic point of view" heh thnx for reading

-Tys

It's nice to see someone post something involving the United States and Iraq with an intelligent opinion.

Personally, I'm Canadian as well, and don't agree with alot of what the USA did. Saddam needed to be taken care of, and it's good that the US did that, but so many things were done that haven't been taken care of.

The USA violated tons of UN sanictions, based on the fact that Iraq was violating sanictions as well. Iraq is being delt with and punished for what it's done and etc. What about the US? Most people don't realize how many rules they broke, and the punishments they have evaded.

I'm not 100% on all the details of it, but for example. When Saddam was captured, the picture everywhere (Time magazine and etc.) of Saddam looking extremely hagard, was not aloud to be publically viewed because it's just degrading. Now don't get me wrong, Saddam deserves far worse, but thats the smallest example.

It's great that the USA stepped in to 'free' Iraq (many people wouldn't call it freedom) and take out saddam. Although if they want to take such noble action, take the punishments with it. Once they start taking the heat and credit for the bad shit they've done along with the good, then I will support them.

[za gophar]

it's pretty complex though. we fuel the problem of starvation by giving people food and water. then they have babies that need food and water too. then the babies grow up and have babies and you have exponential growth and more starving people to feed. it sounds morbid to say that we should not feed the starving, but it basically just makes the problem worse. there are many other ways to help mankind other than feeding starving people in third world countries though. it would be better to promote social change and teach them about birth control so they would reproduce at a sustainable rate.

as for the iraq thing, i dont think a basic view will cut it. we supposedly went in there because we were sure they had WMD's. none have been found so now we think we went in there to throw out their bad leader. i guess that's good so far, but we have quite a few more countries to take over if we are taking over tyranical regimes. also, we are at an increased risk for being the victim of terrorism. we have to put thousands and thousands of lives on the line every day, our soldiers are dying. then we find out that our government has probably been condoning the use of inhumane treatment, basically torture, on the iraqi prisoners. was it worth it? maybe iraq will be a great country some day.. who knows.

[Randedl]

Well I agree with none of that for far more political and ethical reasons than I've been told i'm allowed to use to debate this. This has been an ongoing discussion between tys and myself, and today he has given me a guideline by which I must adhere.

This guideline, as stated above, is that Tys is looking at the subject in question from "a basic point of view". While this is a rather vague notion, I am going to assume that I should be looking at the past two years' developments as driven by primal and instinctive reasoning.

So onwards to that. . .

I agree first of all that water and food are basic human necessities. Further, you, Tys, are also correct when you say that they are required to live.I agree with these notions just as I agree with the notion that a human being needs air to survive; clean air. I don't want to get too far into the political and economic ramifications of what is going on in Iraq right now, but the multi-billion dollar operation that goes on in Iraq to extract fossil fuels into things such as gasoline can't help to ensure this clean air for the future. But hey, food and water compared to clean air, the extremely low casualty rates that people who smoke cigarettes fall victim too are glaring evidence that one doesn't need clean air to survive, or. . . hold on a minute. . . That is all that I am going to say on that particular subject.

On to the main point of this post. Back to instincts, back to looking at Iraq from a basic point of view. Thomas Hobbes once said that every individual is entitled to as much as they can acquire by non-coercive means. If we are to listen, in principal, to what this famed philosopher and political thinker has said, then I believe that we are forced to scratch off anything that the United States steals from Iraq as them being entitled to it, since warfare is the epitomy of coersive tactics. Further, to summarize this notion of Hobbes' into the words of another famed thinker, Charles Darwin, we are basically looking at survival of the fittest.

If you want to look at things from a primitive point of view then shouldn't this notion be adressed? Perhaps the only thing stopping the human race from evolving into a planet-wide paradice is the fact that the unfit, the ones that must be aided by the welfare type states of the west, haven't been eliminated by the Law of Natural Selection.

Look at nature, if a young cow, a calf, has a broken leg, it will be abandoned, left behind for the betterment of the pack in a time of flight. Now look at anybody unable to secure for themself those basic needs of food and water, how are they any different in the grand scheme of things?

Ask yourself this Tys, and then rethink what you just said about basic and primitive notions.

Disclaimer: I don't believe that this is why the United States is wrong in invading Iraq, but this is the argument I will stick to for this specific venue.

[aussie]

i personally think what they did was wrong.. but that's just my opinion

[Bob (SRB)]

whoa you're a deep man rand. But the fact is, Hobbes was insane. I have so much shit to talk about. Like the basic human flaw. Our natural sadistic nature, the only other organism we share this with is a virus or parasite. Why is that??? If we are so smart, so much more advanced than these other animals, then why do we kill eachother? Why do we perform evil and greedy deeds? Is it animal instinct? All animals have the instinct to protect themselves and their family. I don't think human actions fall into the same category though.. We are something different. Look at what humans have done over our years. One quote from the matrix really made me think. How the human being is so much like a virus. It moves from area to area, consumes all the resources, and when it is uninhabitable it moves somewhere else. What has intelligence done to us? Animals that don't have the brain power that we have live mainly off their primal instincts. Eat, sleep, procreate, survive. Has intelligence corrupted us? Is it that we can't handle the brainpower we posess? In our struggle to make everything so efficient, we've done quite the opposite. What rand said about the calf with a broken leg is also very interesting. Because we have developed this intelligence it seems to have driven us away from all that is natural. We can no longer live in harmony with nature, all we can do is destroy it. If we reverted back to our primal state would we end up like other animals that live harmoniously with nature, or do we possess something that they don't? Is our sadistic nature an inherent trait? Or maybe is it a side effect our intelligence? That I do not know. And this also brings me to "higher beings." Humans are truly a very flawed being. There has been talk of perfect beings, divine beings, god, multiple gods. Maybe these beings do exist. But all I believe they are, are beings that have reached the next "level" of existance. The lowest level would be most animals, who rely on their instincts, and primal nature. And in their simplicity they can co-exist with nature. Humans are the level above that. We now have feelings, new instincts, conscience, emotion, a greater understanding of our environment, the ablility to create and implement tools and such. But now we are so out of tune with nature. We use these tools to destroy, we now make decisionss based purely on emotion, and many other side effects. If we could somehow rise above this (of course I don't exactly know how) maybe we could reach the state of a more perfect being.

Anyways enough of my rambling, I know this doesn't really have anything to do with the war in Iraq but I just felt like writing.

[Jeansi]

I'll just answer the question in the thread title and if I have time I'll think closer about the things you said in the post itself.

USA for me represents evil in my eyes (even moer than Russia which is usually the country Finnish people hate). 4-5 years ago the US was for me a good place on earth, a bit self-centered, but fair and reliable. Mainly because of George W Bush's actions I now have a very negative image of that country. Have you ever thought about the reasons as to why they decided to invade Iraq? It's not only about saddam, it's about national economy. USA is the largest arms manufacturer in the world and if there are no conflicts, many americans will lose their jobs (enough to have a serious impact on the possible consumption of the average american). So they need war. A second big reason to attack Iraq was for oil. USA needs to secure their share and they have actually overtaken some iraqi oil-fields without any compensation to the previous (legal) owners.

those aren't of course reasons to hate the country but other, more continuous actions, such as the incteasing trade embargos have started to affect the public image of USA as well.

[Pandagirl!]

I think what the US did, getting rid of Saddam, was a good idea. Dictatorship just doesn't work, because look what happened with Hitler. So it was a good idea to go in there and get rid of Saddam, and prevent something even wrose from happening. I think that we should have planned more however, on what the government would be like once Saddam was gone, because now there is so much turmoil and US hate there, it's impossible to do anything. We should have fonud someone to lead and met with them in secret before we got rid of Saddam, and talked with people about a new government once he's gone and etc etc. I feel that we have been in Iraq for too long, but we can't exactly leave right now, because there's so much revolt that a new dictator would just be set up. So we kinda have to fix what we messed up before we leave.

[Capital Knockers]

A second big reason to attack Iraq was for oil. USA needs to secure their share and they have actually overtaken some iraqi oil-fields without any compensation to the previous (legal) owners.

Another thing the USA has done and not recieved punishment for, heck they'd invade anyone else for doing it.

[Tyson]

Don't look into alot of what USA has done I ask of you to look at everything from a very basic point of view. See whats going on in the world today, how many people go to bed hungry every night and how many of them have aids. Do you honestly think that the money you send actually gets to that person? How many ruthless dictators rule third world countries? Why do you switch the channel everytime you see a "save a child" commercial? Most people argue that going into Iraq was wrong, I agree it was definetly not right but you know what it saved those people alot of lives, someone says "we should of allowed them to evolve on their own and overthrow saddam on their own you know create their own revolution" ok thats pure bullshit you know why,first of all when you rebell or protest in Iraq you get shot, do you honestly think people will be able to overthrow a leader who orders everyone who is against him to get shot? If United States hadn't steped in, the people of Iraq would of suffered, and you know what I am glad they did because at least now 2 more countries have democracy (Iraq and Afghanistan) even though they still suffer from poverty which is pretty much the worlds fault. Someone goes and says "it is the jungle law of capitalism, the stronger take from the weak" ok I understand that rule, some people have worked all of their lives to get to where they are but that still doesn't give them the right to chose whether or not they want to donate money or not, that is playing god (determing the fate of someone else's life). I'll state my conclusion once again: (Major Change)

What needs to be done?

First world countries need to unite forming this massive alliance, and I mean ALL of the first world countries (and not just allow united states to do their dirty work for them)

Secondly these united countries (all of them must unite once again) need to form this huge world wide funding organization. In my opinion the best option would be to tax people every year just enough so that people in other parts of the world have enough to eat.

Lastly what these united countries must do is make sure that money gets there safely meaning: they must do what united states has been doing for them all this time, get in there, get rid of all the leaders considered to be taking donations and harassing people.

People Simply don't care about anything unless it affects their lifetime.
Remember this because it kills alot of people every year.

-Tys

[Jeansi]

Don't look into alot of what USA has done I ask of you to look at everything from a very basic point of view. See whats going on in the world today, how many people go to bed hungry every night and how many of them have aids. Do you honestly think that the money you send actually gets to that person? How many ruthless dictators rule third world countries? Why do you switch the channel everytime you see a "save a child" commercial? Most people argue that going into Iraq was wrong, I agree it was definetly not right but you know what it saved those people alot of lives, someone says "we should of allowed them to evolve on their own and overthrow saddam on their own you know create their own revolution" ok thats pure bullshit you know why,first of all when you rebell or protest in Iraq you get shot, do you honestly think people will be able to overthrow a leader who orders everyone who is against him to get shot? If United States hadn't steped in, the people of Iraq would of suffered, and you know what I am glad they did because at least now 2 more countries have democracy (Iraq and Afghanistan) even though they still suffer from poverty which is pretty much the worlds fault. Someone goes and says "it is the jungle law of capitalism, the stronger take from the weak" ok I understand that rule, some people have worked all of their lives to get to wher

It also killed a lot of people, both american and Iraqi.

[genocidal]

Hehe more Iraqi war discussions. Even though I am personally very against the war and am American it is somewhat refreshing to see Canadians who actually agree with what the US is doing. Regardless of my opinion, it's what my country is doing and it's always better to have support globally than not (and right now it seems like the US is extremely lacking in support). That said, I don't want to get into this discussion particularly because the arguments often times get polarized and debates go no where but trash talk. Tys's reason for supporting the war is interesting and I can agree with most of it but I still have overriding political, ethical, and moral reasons to be opposed with what the US is doing.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Yo when I donate money to the poor countries of Africa i write my name "Jerome Scuggs" on the bills so Sudden aka Faith can leave a forum message thanking me for easing his pain

[Troll King]

As a Canadian, Tyson, what do you think of our country's role in debt relief for third-world countries in Africa?

[Tyson]

As a Canadian, Tyson, what do you think of our country's role in debt relief for third-world countries in Africa?

The Liberal government will dedicate $100 million to the World Health Organizations' '3 x 5' AIDS funding plan
The budget calls for an increase of $248 million in international aid in 2005-06

Thats what our current government is doing.

-Tys