Yes, the U.S. has a responsibility for the havoc we're created throughout the world. Unfortunately, the government is far more likely to use this argument as justification for creating more havoc.
Destabilization seems to be as much a part of their agenda as anything else. Limiting China's oil supply is one of the current priorities. Which is why so much of Iraq's was allowed to burn. Afghanistan is all about the potential for pipelines.
And apparently, the powers that be are perfectly happy to use whatever means necessary to prop up their bottom lines.
2007-07-11 01:14:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by The angels have the phone box. 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
You are right. They US funded the taliban in the 80s, giving money and weapons to nomads is a terrible policy that is always destined to create disaster.
The same can be said of many countries in Africa, where weapons are the real rulers. So the US has a responsibility to clean things up.
However, everytime the US steps up, like the war in Afghanistan, the rest of the world cries foul, and accuses it of nation building. So what most people mean when they say that the US should be responsible for fixiing things, is that they want a time machine created so that the original mistakes can be fixed. Not possible.
In the end, selling weaponry is a dirty business that most 'civilized' nations are dealing in. The russians and French were supplying the Iraqis while the US was supplying the Iranians during the 7 year war, all the 'civilized' nations were making a fortune from selling weapons and getting to see how effective they were, while the poor Muslims killed one another.
The US isn't the only dirty ball player out there, most countries are deeply involved.
2007-07-11 08:56:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe the Taliban wouldn't have been a problem today if we had lost the cold war with Russia because we didn't oppose them at every turn.A lot of armchair politicians here.It's easy to look back and say,"we should have done this or that"ignoring the fact that there was a real threat at the time from communist Russia.We worked to contain their ambitions,successfully I might add.Had we not armed the Taliban,it is possible that it would have teetered the other way,and the Soviet Union would have been victorious.They would have crushed the Taliban,yes,but the West wouldn't be basking that the Taliban didn't exist,the West could possibly have been under Soviet rule.You cannot say an event or action was "wrong"because down the line another event occurred.In the context of the era,A very REAL struggle between two competing ideologies(both with LOTS of nukes)It was the right course of action for the time.Had we NOT supported them,the entire middle east oil supply could very easily be currently wholly owned and controlled by a dominant USSR.That prospect is less appealing than dealing with extremism today
2007-07-11 08:30:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most developed nations had their hands in the pot not just the USA.
All governments in any nation are corrupted to some degree it is the way humans have ruled over themselves for many centuries.
Where do you get the idea that democracy should be equivilant to honesty?
It will never be different as long as mankind rules over mankind, it has not changed in the past and will not change in the future. Totally left in human hands - power corrupts.
2007-07-11 08:05:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
I appreciate good question.
To open the eyes of those don't accept the reality, even they are that much innocent don't think this, no one can correct him self till he don't except what the problem is.
They are like an Ostrich as he put his head in send and feels every thing is fine.
2007-07-11 08:31:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Reality 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The minimum that could be done: let all members of the executive branch and all member of congress who supported the Taliban policy pay back what they handed out to Bin Laden.
2007-07-11 08:09:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by kwistenbiebel 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Like many historical events that seem like blunders now, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea (or at the very least, the lesser of two evils) at the time.
Hindsight is 20/20, and all that....
2007-07-11 08:07:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I reckon since the US owns all the weapons and the knowledge, they thought: what da heck, we can kill them if they go haywire.
---
Whats all the politics questions in R &S anyway? did the politics section finally collapse on its own bigotted face?
2007-07-11 08:06:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Antares 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
But why don't they ever run out of guns and bombs? They're just this side of being savages! Medieval barbarians with 21st century weaponry.....
2007-07-11 08:17:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
They are self fish.. they only think of their own interest.. they don`t mind & they don`t care if their citezens or other countrys citezens suffer,strugle, or die..
2007-07-11 08:20:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋