Because America is in superiority complex and thinks that it is superior to all other nations of the world. It has no in the world peace. It has no respect for the sovereignty of other nations. It brutally kills the citizens of other nations, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq are latest illustrations. The alleged terrorists are certainly innocent people and in fact they are victims of U.S. cruelty and brutality. U. S. Government is not fair with its own citizens and forces. U. S. Government utilizing its forces for in human purposes i.e., for killing innocent people of weak nations and unjustifiedly and unfairly supporting Israel and U.K. and making the people of various nations and various religions enemy of its own citizens.
2006-08-11 04:33:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by mushtaqehind 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
Well America has a lot to do with world's problems. That country sponsored terrorism in it's early days and is now fighting it. Also many people think the Irak occupation was fake since there was no Nuke found or anything like it, just for the oil. That is also why the arab world is so pissed and while other countries try peaceful talking USA is always talking about atacking and destroying the threat. That isn't the only way. Terrorists aren't innocent and what they do can be explained by how they themselves were treated. I'm not saying they're right, but they have a point. The US soldiers weren't really nice and kind with their prisoners. I think the hate goes all back to the days when America was selling weapons to these guys. I mean come on, where they better then? Where they fighting a good cause?
2006-08-11 21:46:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by sleepless citizen 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
It is because America is nosy and interferes too much in the affairs of other countries! The US for a change should focus on a mountain of domestic problems which can lift up the spirit of millions of Americans and improve their living standard which in turn can create demand for goods and services from other parts of the world as everything needed by the people cannot be produced within a given country! Why can't the money be spent on tidying up the debris in New Orleans caused by Katrina, instead of spending on fighting a losing battle in Iraq? The Bush administration should polish the Statute of Liberty and provide true liberty to people within the country rather than exporting it to others! The list can go on....
2006-08-11 04:32:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sami V 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ron Paul desires to abolish Social protection, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition Stamps, Welfare, public guidance, the positioned up workplace, public parks, public streets 7 HIGHWAYS, the EPA, OSHA, USDA, FDA, etc. He needs the government to purely do the militia. He needs all else privatized, so it would all value you greater, and deregulation of all industries.. he's against government regulation of any style. Paul has mentioned greater suitable than as quickly as he believes the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. the country might rapidly substitute right into a third international us of a if he had his way. From transcript of Ron Paul with Mike Wallace of Fox information: “You communicate plenty relating to the form,” Fox information’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “you're saying Social protection, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.” “Technically they're,” Paul insisted. “there's no authority. Article one million, area 8 doesn’t say i will set up an coverage software for human beings. What area of the form — liberals are those that use this primary welfare clause.” “The shape and the courtroom mentioned slavery substitute into criminal, too. We had to opposite that. So, I aid you already know. in basic terms because of the fact a courtroom in ’37 went very liberal on us and bigger the region of government, no, i think of the unique motive isn't a foul theory,” Paul opined. ##
2016-11-04 08:56:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's a long answer which follows our $400,000,000,000+ in annual military spending (not necessarily including Iraq or Afghanistan or military aid to other countries like the $2.2B per year for Israel's military) all over the world and suggests that one of our dollars is as likely, if not more likely, to be involved in making trouble as anybody else's.
I don't like that answer. It sounds a bit too... something. So let's talk about America, the nation that leads the free world, the shining city on the hill. Let's talk about the America that hosts the UN, that successfully fought on both fronts in WWII, that out-competed the Stalinist threat of the cold war.
That America has the money and the position to do whatever it wants. Our fame is such that our president getting sexual favors from an intern makes front page news around the world. "Leader of the Free World" is not a title that was meant to be used in jest.
One of our previous leaders, President Eisenhower (the guy who lead D-Day in WWII), said that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
And yet we're still at war, still spending $8B per month on the war in Iraq, still trying to give tax breaks to the rich while making bankruptcy more difficult for the poor.
What America is to blame for is being the best, the richest, the freest, the bravest country in the world and yet being too poor, cowardly and politics/business-as-usual to do better than anybody else. And that blame doesn't come from hating America; it comes from loving it for what we believe it could be.
2006-08-11 06:08:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because we are the ONE and only remaining super power. I don't know who it was earlier that said we were the second most powerful but they need to go back to school and learn a few things.
Because we are the most powerful nation, politically, economically and militarily everyone assumes that we are either 1) responsible for the problem or 2) can solve it.
Ever follow an international problem? Not particularly the large ones that everyone knows about but the smaller ones that barely 5% of the people have paid attention to. 90% of the time nothing gets handled or settle but everyone keeps begging the US to get involved and often the US has no interest to get involved. Sometimes the problems resolve themselves but sometimes the problem grows and the US has to step in because no one else can get everyone to listen, but once they do most of the parties involved will shape up because the US has the political clout and economic muscle to make things happen.
Then of course there's the military. Contrary to popular belief the US has always been very, very hesitant about putting ground troops into a conflict but when they do the world pays attention.
2006-08-11 04:54:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tower of T 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because we don't do enough to solve the real causes of all this strife. Poverty, malnutrition, lack of education, we don't help any of the third world countries rise above this. Successful society, well fed, and an intelligent country makes for a peaceful country.
Plus our support for brutal state sponsored terrorism, i.e. Nicaragua, Haiti, Somalia(pre this current crisis, although I'm sure still supporting it isn't helping either), Indonesia, certainly doesn't help.
2006-08-11 04:24:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by cmott84 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The neoconservatives could not care less about public opinion. Neocons are contemptuous of the American people. Leo Strauss taught neocons that it was their duty to deceive the clueless American people in order to implement their agenda of global domination. The neocons believe that they have a perfect right, even the obligation, to manipulate the public through propaganda and black ops in order to create acceptance and support for their wars of aggression.The Bush/Olmert axis-of-evil have made it clear that "we don't want no stinking peace."George Bush has finally put Armageddon firmly on the political agenda, and it is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.
This means that we Armageddonists need keep to the shadows no longer. Bush and his colleagues in the White House have given us credibility and respectability. They have made our goal their goal, and death, disease, war and famine are now the most likely fate for more people in the Middle East than we Armageddonists had ever dared to hope for.
2006-08-11 04:35:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by jdfnv 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
You make me ashamed that you call yourself an American with such an attitude: Our mission was to bring democracy to Iraq - not rape 14 year old girls and kill her and her family to satisfy our lust!
You an all the whiners like you that can be so cavalier about the lives of other people make me sick! You dont deserve to call yourself American -because you dont know what that stands for.
You might want to see what our founding fathers had in mind.
Her and her family were not terroists they were the ones we were bringing democracy to! And I hope the bastards that did that get the death penalty - slow death!
2006-08-11 04:56:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by worriedaboutyou 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Ninety percent of the garbage that pollutes and kills come from us-one f,uck.king country. Every american knows which ways their civil liberties and constitutional rights are being taken from them insiduoslly day after day, as we concrete and pave the environment so life isn't possible anyway, yet they concern themselves with nuclear arms in iraq that werent't there. What the hell do you think we are, with our prison camps that torture, world prisoners.
2006-08-11 04:26:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by yourdoneandover 5
·
1⤊
1⤋