I hate the United Nations.

[Daevren]

Well, you guessed right. I am from the Netherlands.

'We' once reigned the world, killed alot of slaves, started some wars, stole goods from people in indo-china, even a small genocide here and there.

And I am not really proud of those things.

The only good things from my country are things done by individuals, painters, philosopers, scientists, etc.

I am happy my country is rather weak now, because if we weren't it might still commit war crimes.
 

[musik_man]

Daevren, your attacks on the US's motivations in WWII is useless.  It's impossible to argue this point, as no one other than FDR and God can know why he wanted the US to enter.  All you did was make a personal attack based off of sheer speculation.  The reasons why the US entered WWII are irrelevant.  If we invaded Germany because FDR thought Hitler's bar moustasche was a fashion crime, it still would've been a good action.  The only question that FDR's motivation would enter to, is if we were discussing his sanity.

The basic fact is that the US saved millions of lives by entering the war.  Both by defeating the Japanese and by keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe.

As to your accusations of the US commiting "slavery, genocide, and war crimes"...  I won't comment on that until you provide some support for your slander of my country.

I am happy my country is rather weak now, because if we weren't it might still commit war crimes.

This may sound good, but it isn't a plausible idea in reality.  There will always be a dominant power.  It may be a global power, or a regional power, or a local power, but there will always be a nation that has more power than the rest.  The only way to try and prevent this is to enter an 19th century European mindset.  We all know that that type of thinking led to the First World War.  What really matters is what the dominant power does with it's strength.  I'm quite satisfied with the US's use of it's power.  I don't see it as flawless, but I see it as pursuing the correct goals and ideals.

BTW on your point about passports.  One doesn't need a passport to travel out of the country.  Just last week, I went to Mexico using my birth certificate and a driver's license.  And even if Americans leave their country less than Europeans, there is a good reason.  Our nation is bigger.  You could fit several European nations in my state.  You could get all Europe into my nation.  So even if we never leave US territory, we can experience a wide range of environments and cultures.

[mikeyg]

Amen to all of it, my friend

[BoliverAllmon]

yeah my cousin is stationed in Germany right now and we laugh because he says that nearly everything in Germany is only 45 min. away. LOL. I takes 10 hrs. just to get out of Texas from where I live.

boliver

[willcowskitz]

You could get all Europe into my nation.  So even if we never leave US territory, we can experience a wide range of environments and cultures.

With such a high diversity of different cultures 

It's impossible to argue this point, as no one other than FDR and God can know why he wanted the US to enter.

I see... United States of America is the promised land led by the one and only God.  I suppose bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also justified by God's mysterious ways.  Anyone experience chills?

[mikeyg]

With such a high diversity of different cultures 

Yes.  Believe it or not, America has the highest diversity of any country on earth.  Hence, America is called "the melting pot".

I see... United States of America is the promised land led by the one and only God.  I suppose bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also justified by God's mysterious ways.  Anyone experience chills?

I'm pretty sure the US didn't get any extra land during WWII, so I don't know what you're talking about.  And all experts agree that the bombings of Hiroshima saved over ONE MILLION LIVES, on both the Japanese and US side.  And Muzik_Man saying only God knows why is just an expression.  You should be thanking God that the US doesn't have the religious fervor of counties like Iran and India.

[willcowskitz]

Yes.  Believe it or not, America has the highest diversity of any country on earth.  Hence, America is called "the melting pot".

Do you see the obvious flaw in the comparison between Europe's and U.S.'s cultural diversity.  The diversity in relation to area is much higher than in U.S., when the diversity is higher in U.S. if looked at one nation itself (because the one nation happens govern such big area).  About cultures "melting" together (if I understood correctly), the output is probably the American mentality and trends taking over the smaller and/or older cultures, and what we have is more "American culture."

And Muzik_Man saying only God knows why is just an expression.

From his sentence it could be understood that the "he" refers to "God."  That'd be more than a saying.

You should be thanking God that the US doesn't have the religious fervor of counties like Iran and India.

It doesn't?  Why does Bush use the word "God" so many times in his rhetorics, do you think he's capable of thinking in symbols?  If you look at the certain category of people in your country, they have a strong stench of nearly religious nationalism (the flag being the false god maybe?) in their attitudes.  The propagandha on American TV channels is almost like "Huh? Am I in Mao's China?"  You're probably so used to it that it has become a vital part of your self image, as I've not during my time on the Internet interacted with people from another country that would (in average) feel their identities so attached to their nationality.  This kind of "fundamentalism" is of course possible only with an aggressive and authoritative government, hence why people avoid questioning their leaders' decisions and actions, because the feeling of massive unity is important in nationalism.

[mikeyg]

See, the promlem with America is that it isn't a melting pot anymore, but perhaps a salad bowl.  people come here and refuse to learn the language (I don't care what the law says, English is the language of America), which serves only to divide the country and slow things down.  It is diversity on an extreme level that will rip america apart.

[mikeyg]

And Bush says alot of things, and he is only one person.  And what I meant was that we would never be like India and Pakistan who were on the verge of nuclear war because one is Hindu and the other is Moslem.

[Daevren]

About WWII, motive is very important. But it may be hard to find the correct ones.

Fact is, Roosefelt promised Stalin a second front(when they were still friends) and he didn't get one for a long time. When the germans were almost defeated a second one came. And if you believe that the influence that this gave to the US, which lasts to today is purely coincidence.

There are even Europeans that bring up the US saving us from Hitler is a reason to support them now in Iraq. Also, what would have happened if the UK, US, Canada, Australia etc didn't open a second front? Maybe the USSR would have annexed whole  Europe. Then the US would have invaded Europe to safe us from communism.

The japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was more of a pre-emptive strike than the US attack on Iraq by far. There were two superpowers in a to small a space. If the Japanese didn't attack the US would have at some point. They did gain alot of Islands this way.

The nuclear bombs, and also the fire bombing of cities like Tokyo were war crimes. US generals have admitted they would have been hung for war crimes had they lost. The Russians did it, the Japanese did it, the germans did it, but the US and the UK did commit war crimes too. Even my country screwed up again in Indo-China.

And for the US to exist a whole civilization was exterminated. Well, it happened already, I am not agruing all white people should leave the american continent, but people should still realise this. The white men killed all the american indian ones, so they could rob their land. US power is build on the death of these people, which is an estimated 20 to 40 million(yes, lots of discussion there). Definetely a genocide.

Also, US is the only country to be condemned by the world court for state terrorism, then veto-ed several resolutions asking all members to make sure terrorism was stopped(with a big wink to the US) and the US veto-ed them because they were clearly anti-US.

This example is well documented, but other US war crimes are more extensive. Most of them are in Middle or South America.

[musik_man]

Willcowskitz, you're right in saying that Europe has a higher culture/m^2 than the US.  What I meant is that someone can never leave the USA and experience a higher diversity of cultures than if one never left say Belgium.  I find it insulting that someone takes someone living in the middle of America, hundreds of miles away from any foreign country, assumes an arrogant haughty tone and laughs at that person, calling them a parochial little twit, because the stupid American hasn't been to as many countries as all those cosmopolitan Europeans.  There are very legitimate reasons why the average US citizen isn't as well traveled as the European.

When I mentioned FDR and God, I meant it like Mikey interpreted it.  Sorry if I was unclear. 

Now, I'm not gonna debate you on whether US news is balanced, as that question is really decided based off of one's perspective i.e. a Communist will view a Union newsletter as vile capitalist propaganda, while a Union member will look at it as fair and balanced.  I'm more than willing to debate the facts of whatever issue is up, but debating the opinions is useless.

Daevren, I disagree.  Motive is unimportant.  The fact is that the US entered the war and saved many lives.  Do you dispute that?  Whether we had good or bad intentions is irrelevant, as it was a good act.

Whether individual acts in a war are "crimes" is arguable.  If bombing Hiroshima would have saved 10 million lives, would it have been justifiable?  1 million?  500,000?  It's easy to look back and condemn acts that happened 50 years ago.  Especially since you know how everything turned out in the end.  War is a messy thing.  Lines get blurred.  I tend to give a bit of leeway to generals in a war.  One can't fault them for a mess that they had no control over; however, I have no problems condemning immorality; such as the 8 millions murdered by Hitler, or the 20 million Stalin had killed...  If you can show me where the US did comparable things recently, I'd have no choice to condemn the people who did it.  You'll notice that I said "the people who did it."  One shouldn't blame a whole nation for the crimes of some of it's citizens, especially if those citizens, as is the case for US slavery or mistreatment of the Indians, are dead.

I'm not going to argue with the World Court.  In my eyes, it has no legitimacy.  If you want to show me that the US commits terrorist actions, show me instances where it has, not someone who says it has.  Please show me the clear documentation of US crimes, then we can debate those.

I'd like to close on a general note, which I think applies to many critics of the US.  Remember that the US is a nation.  Treat it as such.  When you compare America to an ideal or a utopia, you're going to find that it comes up lacking.  We consist of 300 million human beings.  Each one of us is imperfect, so it's obvious that our actions aren't perfect.  Stop expecting them to be.  There's nothing wrong with saying that the US has done things that, on second glance, weren't the best choice.  The problem appears when you blow up America's failures and hide its triumphs, when you view the US as evil because it isn't perfect.  No governing body, political party, or nation will ever be perfect.  And if you keep your current standards, you'll end up spending your entire lives spitting venom at whoever's in charge for that basic fact.  Instead, you ought to push for action that will help improve the world, while acknowledging that you will never create a utopia.

[mikeyg]

Wow, I wish I was as verbose as Musik_Man.  Thank you for another exellent post.

[Daevren]

Now, I'm not gonna debate you on whether US news is balanced, as that question is really decided based off of one's perspective i.e. a Communist will view a Union newsletter as vile capitalist propaganda, while a Union member will look at it as fair and balanced.  I'm more than willing to debate the facts of whatever issue is up, but debating the opinions is useless.

You could very well argue about how broad the spectrum of different views and thus media is in the US.

Whether individual acts in a war are "crimes" is arguable.

Individual acts? The fire-bombing of Japanese and German cities was an individual act? Developing nuclear weapons and using them? It was obviously state policy.

If bombing Hiroshima would have saved 10 million lives, would it have been justifiable?  1 million?  500,000?

Well well, I have heard many claim different numbers when we talk about how many lives the atom bomb saved. But 10 million? Thats alot. Do you know how many people the US lost in the whole war? not more than 500,000.

Firstly, I find it irrevelant how many lives it might or would have safed. You do not bomb cities, ever. And with nuclear bombs, thats beyond anything reasonable.

It's easy to look back and condemn acts that happened 50 years ago.  Especially since you know how everything turned out in the end.

I am just a man. Roosevelt and Churchill were heroes, great men. Surely they could do better than me!

Also, doesn't this mean whe shouldn't be able to learn from this. Its very easy to do the wrong things as a leader of a country in war. But does that make the suffering of people less significant?

However, I have no problems condemning immorality; such as the 8 millions murdered by Hitler, or the 20 million Stalin had killed...  If you can show me where the US did comparable things recently

Obviously the US didn't murder 8 million or more people the last few years. But that doesn't mean killing 10,000 isn't bad and that that act of  immorality shouldn't be condemned just as hard.

You'll notice that I said "the people who did it."  One shouldn't blame a whole nation for the crimes of some of it's citizens, especially if those citizens, as is the case for US slavery or mistreatment of the Indians, are dead.

You know, madmen like Stalin and Hitler will show up eventually. But a whole country supporting them through the killing of 15 and 50 million(Hitler and Stalins totals)? No way! I blame the people supporting them more than I blame the leaders themselves. In my country an insane number of jews were killed. Alot more than in other countries. Turns out that one of the values in my country is, or was, to accept authority. A police controlled by the germans was to be obeyed just as well as before the occupation. This turned out very badly.

My government supported the recent US war in Iraq. I went to the capital and took position against it.

I'm not going to argue with the World Court.  In my eyes, it has no legitimacy.

If you think that way then that is sad. Fact is, almost all civilized countries do accept its legitimacy. So do all other opponents of war crimes and international injustice. Too bad.

If you want to show me that the US commits terrorist actions, show me instances where it has, not someone who says it has.  Please show me the clear documentation of US crimes, then we can debate those.

Uuh, if you don't believe the world court then who will you believe. Surely not me.

https://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nicaragua
https://www.sandinovive.org/17b/JugmntJune27-86.htm

Almost the whole world thinks the US is guilty here. This was also the moment where the US started to oppose the ICJ. Don't forget the US almost founded the ICJ singlehandedly. Then one infavorable ruling and they pull out, claiming it has no legitimation and they start to boycotting it. Surely this is political power play.

Wikipedia says this:
"For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United States of America had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did."

I'd like to close on a general note, which I think applies to many critics of the US.  Remember that the US is a nation.  Treat it as such.  When you compare America to an ideal or a utopia, you're going to find that it comes up lacking.  We consist of 300 million human beings.  Each one of us is imperfect, so it's obvious that our actions aren't perfect.  Stop expecting them to be.

We are talking about the US actively and willingly committing crimes. Those weren't mistakes or bad judgement.

Yes, the US is a state and a very big and powerful one. If you believe this results in war crimes, injustice and suffering isn' t the solution obvious? Split ip the US? Get rid of the federal government? disbamd the whole country?

Imagine a murderer put on trial. His excuse, he is no the only one that kills people. Or, the world is a hard place, it isn't perfect, thus the murderer isn't perfect. The judge just has to accept that. Or maybe that person did nice things too. Maybe he did very nice things. Maybe he invented a cure for cancer/aids/malaria and gave it to everyone for free. Would that person, who saved millions of lives by being nice, be allowed to murder someone? Surely not.

When you say that no governing body, party or nation will ever 'be perfect' then why not get rid of them? Really, if they result in people getting hurt and killed, surely the advantages do not weight up to the disadvantages. If power stucures make people abuse power then get rid of all ways of structuring power.

Someone once said: "Politicians are just like pigs, you need to hit them with a stick on the nose."
If you stop 'spitting venom' at a government that represents you and has your vote as a justification for its existence then things like those in germany 1936-1945 happen. If everyone on the country would have been aware of the things happening in Nicaragua or Vietnam, or Colombia, or Indonesia, or Afghanistan, or Laos, or Chili, or Guatemala, or Cambodja, or Panama, or Haiti, or Grenada, or El Salvador, or Iraq, or Libanon, or Angola, or Bolivia, or Iran or Argentine they would have voiced out against this. And the US government would have been forced to stop their violence.

We aren't talking about subtle dillemas and hard descisions. We are talking about power abuse by the biggest baddest thug on the block.

The US invaded Grenada out of self defence. That was ludicrous. You know how small and insignificant that country is? Somehow it was a threat to the existance of the US. Can you imagne being the leader of that country and deciding to attack the US, out of all countries?!

If you would count all the victims of these conflicts, often started by the US, or started by US organised terrorists it would really get into the millions.

[mikeyg]

OK, lets get back on topic.  note the title is "I  hate the United Nations" not " I hate the United States". 

Refute this:
  The work that the UN does can be done better and cheaper by a private organization.

[Skeptopotamus]

UN is slow

private organization is fast, because private organization doesn't argue with itself.

[mikeyg]

That is just one reason.  There are many others.  The private organizations are in it for the money, and will work harder (makes sense, doesn't it?) whereas the UN does it out of "philanthropy", and wussies out the minute anything bad goes wrong.

[Skeptopotamus]

yep.  when money is involved and grants and loans depend on deadlines things get done.  But couldnt a private organization be bought off?   ish riskay.  that's what makes it smell like peanut butter.

[pianonut]

every nation is under God.  We just don't know it yet.  "wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart"

i've been to a lot of history classes (ie one at CalState) where american history is slammed.  i don't disagree with the ideas of living peacefully, and admire people like William Penn and others who made peace with the indians instead of taking, taking.  and, having grown up in Alaska, always thought it was wrong to take away any rights they gained (even over us) for employment and scholarships.  it's a catch 22 sometimes with nationalities because there is no TRUST.

In an ideal world, we would co-exist in peace.  We would be there for each other.  We would value different cultures and different ways of doing things.  This is what the UN is supposed to represent.  I think in many ways they do...but in one respect they don't.  They do not value HONESTY.  There were some things discovered by President Bush that validate our reasons for not trusting them.  Selling weapons, aiding the enemy, etc.  So, that's where it stands in my mind.  The nations that are not liked are the same ones that have gone into debt to help other nations, while the nations whose debts are forgiven are held in higher esteem.  Why don't we obtain respect when we sacrifice so many of our own people for other's freedom?

[musik_man]

Individual acts? The fire-bombing of Japanese and German cities was an individual act? Developing nuclear weapons and using them? It was obviously state policy.

Individual acts, not acts by individuals.

Well well, I have heard many claim different numbers when we talk about how many lives the atom bomb saved. But 10 million? Thats alot. Do you know how many people the US lost in the whole war? not more than 500,000.

Firstly, I find it irrevelant how many lives it might or would have safed. You do not bomb cities, ever. And with nuclear bombs, thats beyond anything reasonable.

I never claimed it saved '10 million.'  Please notice the "if" that starts my sentence.

I disagree that bombing cities is inherently evil.  While we should try not to kill civilians, there are times when acts that hurt many civilians are the least costly way, in terms of lives, to win.

I am just a man. Roosevelt and Churchill were heroes, great men. Surely they could do better than me!

Also, doesn't this mean whe shouldn't be able to learn from this. Its very easy to do the wrong things as a leader of a country in war. But does that make the suffering of people less significant?

They were just men too.  Same as you are.

It doesn't lower the significance of the suffering, but it should be factored in when judging the morality of their actions.  They shouldn't be judged based off of merely the result, just like there's a moral difference between accidently hitting someone with your car, and shooting them in cold blood, why something was done can mitigate the immorality.

If you think that way then that is sad. Fact is, almost all civilized countries do accept its legitimacy. So do all other opponents of war crimes and international injustice. Too bad.

Once again, you arguing that you're right becuase others agree with you  rather than arguing that the facts support you.  350 years ago, all 'civilized' nations agreed that slavery was moral, that nobility were better than the common, and that religion should be the realm of state.  The main group that disagreed with these things was English Puritans, a small religious minority.  Were they wrong because they weren't with the majority?

The links you gave do the exact same thing.  Little more than articles accusing the US of terrible things, and supporting those accusations by quoting people who agree with them.  It's a sloppy form of argumentation.

Imagine a murderer put on trial. His excuse, he is no the only one that kills people. Or, the world is a hard place, it isn't perfect, thus the murderer isn't perfect. The judge just has to accept that. Or maybe that person did nice things too. Maybe he did very nice things. Maybe he invented a cure for cancer/aids/malaria and gave it to everyone for free. Would that person, who saved millions of lives by being nice, be allowed to murder someone? Surely not.

A more apt analogy would be that the person ran a red light, and people like you want him locked up for 20 years for that.

The suggestion you offer in your last paragraphs is completely unrealistic.  Dissolve the US?!?!  That's not going to happen, and it wouldn't improve the world.  There will always be groups with the power to commit evil, even if the US is gone.  You can't just snap your fingers and make the world perfect.  We shouldn't get rid of imperfect governments, because they'll just be replaced by other imperfect governments.  This of course isn't to say that removing evil governments is unfruitfull.  I'm simply saying that if your standard for governance is perfection, expect to be disappointed.  All governments are inherently imperfect, as they are all made of imperfect humans.

[Daevren]

If you want to ignore the facts, fine.

You deny the people that were killed in the wars I mentioned? Do you deny US involvement?

I claim less structures of power will reduce abuse of power. If there are no states, there are no borders and there will be no wars.

I am not saying 'disband' the US tomorrow. Thats not realistic. I am just saying, decentralise power. Its not like the people in the US wanted all those wars. Only a small elite wanted them. If there is more direct democracy and more decentralised power many wars and war crimes will be avoided.

I am really shocked by your red light analogy and me trying to put them away for 20 years. We are talking about 100,000+ people dead in each of those conflicts. Some were started by the CIA because the democratic elected government wouldn't really do what the US told them to do.

If you don't want to believe anyone, go to Latin America and ask the people what happened.

Funny that you bring up slavery and you put me at the pro-slavery side while you compare war crimes to driving through a red light.

Its still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And about the UN. A private organisation doing the same thing? This is one of the absurdest things I ever heard. Why not have four and have them compete also.

Why not privatise a country's government?

[musik_man]

If you want to ignore the facts, fine.

What facts?  I haven't seen these 'facts' you talk of...

You deny the people that were killed in the wars I mentioned? Do you deny US involvement?

I don't deny that the US was involved in Nicaragua, and I don't deny that people died.  I am, however, not accepting your claims of US war crimes until you show me evidence of them.  It hardly seems unreasonable of me to do so.

I claim less structures of power will reduce abuse of power. If there are no states, there are no borders and there will be no wars.

So you're an anarchist?

I am not saying 'disband' the US tomorrow. Thats not realistic. I am just saying, decentralise power. Its not like the people in the US wanted all those wars. Only a small elite wanted them. If there is more direct democracy and more decentralised power many wars and war crimes will be avoided.

What makes you think that decentralization of power stops wars?  Look at European history.  Heavily decentralized power for 500 years, and dozens of brutal wars.

Your suggestion for more democracy makes no sense to me.  The US is a full democratic country.  Only the Judiciary isn't voted on.

I am really shocked by your red light analogy and me trying to put them away for 20 years. We are talking about 100,000+ people dead in each of those conflicts. Some were started by the CIA because the democratic elected government wouldn't really do what the US told them to do.

Evidence, please, some evidence...

If you don't want to believe anyone, go to Latin America and ask the people what happened.

Sure!  I'll just hop on my private jet and take a week off from college! [/sarcasm]

But seriously, stop responding to my requests for facts by invoking other people that agree with you.  I'm not going to accept it no matter how long you continue to do it.

Funny that you bring up slavery and you put me at the pro-slavery side while you compare war crimes to driving through a red light.

I never put you on the pro-slavery side.  If you think that's what I meant, you must also think I'm accusing you of supporting Nobility over peasants.   I can't help but think you purposely misread that to attack me.  The point of that was quite obvious, being in the majority doesn't give moral right.

Its still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm noticing a trend here.  I ask for evidence for your attacks.  You give more attacks.

The only war crimes that are happening in Iraq are done by Sunni terrorists who long for the good old days when they repressed all other ethnicities under Saddamn.  Those war crimes consist of beheading civilians, blowing up civilians, very unambiguous stuff.

[Daevren]

I don't deny that the US was involved in Nicaragua, and I don't deny that people died.

Well, that is the war crime. The US organised the contras which resulted in alot of deaths. Goal was to intinidate and coherse the marxistic government out of power and get 'their guys' back in. You say you don't deny this. Then what kind of proof do you want? You want your government to admit they are terrorists? You want CNN to run a program covering the US war crimes?

About Iraq. The US used unprovoded militairy forca against the state of Iraq. Result, 16,000 civillians dead and 25,000 Iraqi military and security forces. Secondly, the US is torturing its POW's in Guantanomo Bay, prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else?

If you are going to use force you have to justify it. The burden of proof is not with me.  You should prove that the US involvement in all those conflicts was to protect the security of its citizens.
Fine, if you don't think that training, organising and supporting paramilitary ogranisations who then kill tenthousands of civillians is a war crime. Then forget it, I give up.

[mikeyg]

About Gantanimo Bay, there are peolple there who actually don't want to leave because it is so much better than their home.

[lostinidlewonder]

I always thought that in war, EVERYONE is wrong, NOONE is right there is just different degrees of REACTION to the wrong done to one another.

It is like.. put 10 cats who don't know where the other came from in the same room. Eventually they try to set the pecking order. Humans are no different even though we like to argue that we are. We want to ensure nothing is a threat to us.

America is a super power, they will squash whatever threatens them, thus they unavoidably do more WRONG than most nations. Give all the power to ... Fiji and I would comfortably infer the same would happen. So it doesnt matter who it is, it has to be someone that is the nature of this world.

Should have america Dropped the H bombs on Japan? Did killing 200,000 innocent people avoid more deaths? Or was this just a super power flexing their muscles to secure the top of the pecking order?

If you really think about it, it is all money driven. I swear to you, there would be ZERO problems if there was no physical gain to be made out of any war. America doesn't invade Iraq to make the world more secure, look at the oil reserves and Bush's connection with the oil companies.

Would the Iraqi people be happy if USA left and the people all organised what shoudl happen? No way. Because the people do not know what they want! The conflicts of ideas could only be fixed if each and every person got what they wanted and the entire territoriy was split up. But then people will start to argue that they are not getting as much as this person and war starts again.

Such a simple procress and shocking how we just don't think about  it. We fool ourselves, the American soldiers think they are freeing the world, little do they realise that to some degree they are risking their lives to secure money and wealth for their country, somewhat less appealing and something I doubt anyone would risk their life for.