How come they pick and choose who they want to help? are there not countries who’s people were far worse off than the Iraqi people?(like in Africa)why is it OK for the US to have an enormous stockpile of nuclear arms and then call other countries evil for trying to create the same deterrent system?
2007-10-29 13:08:19 · 8 answers · asked by tony cola 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
babe-
are you saying your president did not say he was there for humanity reasons?
2007-10-29 13:17:15 · update #1
next you will clame he never lied about Sodam's involvement in 9 /11
2007-10-29 13:20:57 · update #2
The US needs to fix the problems here in America, before we try to 'fix' problems in other countries.
2007-10-29 13:13:48 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think, that our humanitarian aide and outside contributions to causes around the world should be directly related to how the rest of the world treats us. When we are under attack militarily by entities outside the United States, we should go into a much tighter than normal budget with everyone around the world. This way... people would protect us, and want to see us prosper because they will understand that if we feel under threat.... that the padlock goes on the purse of America.
I think we should help out in the world where and when we can. That of course is dependant on our priorites and obligations here at home. Right now, I think we need to severely cut back on our outside the USA spending.
#1 priority right now should be ... getting the influx of immigrants under control in this country.
2007-10-29 20:21:16 · answer #2 · answered by pink 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called double standards by the US government. They sell all these so called arms, and then when these so called countries have to much nukes etc. They use the excuse that they a threat to the USA. They love using this argument about bringing "democracy" to these countries. I wonder will they bring there so called democracy to Sudan, or Tibet? Get the Chinese out of Tibet? No silly me forgot no oil there! How about Zimbabwe? No mention by Bush about Robert Mugabe or how he need to invade there for so called democracy!
2007-10-29 20:17:36 · answer #3 · answered by Feis Ort 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
The USA has the option to pick you we help. You as an individual have that right. Why should a nation be any different. The USA doesn't have an obligation to help any country. The USA doesn't have a dictator with a finger on the button of a nuke. Say you have a stock pile of guns and two groups to choose to give them to, one group is only interested in defending themselves in the event of an attack, the other group wants to destroy anyone who doesn't think or believe like they do. Now, who would you give the weapons to?
2007-10-29 20:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Oil. We interject to protect our own interests.
Lots of countries have nukes. Even Muslim countries like Pakistan. When countries support terrorism, or have leaders that like to pound their chest and threaten our allies, such as Israel, then no, you don't get nukes.
2007-10-29 20:19:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Consider two adjacent towns - one with a police force and the other without a police force. Obviously, if the town without a police force could keep its fanatical agendas and blood lust confined within its own borders, we would have no problem simply tending to our own concerns.
Unfortunately, in today's world, this is not the case and we have to consider the safety and security of American citizens from threats beyond our borders.
2007-10-29 20:52:10 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
By default the US has become the world's policeman. This enables countries such as: Canada, France, and Germany to have the luxury of hiding behind the curtains.
It sucks.
2007-10-29 20:12:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You have no idea why we went to Iraq, so I would recommend you begin with a History lesson. Sign off the computer and learn something.
2007-10-29 20:14:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋