Why are Americans so distrustful?

[Frozen Inferno]

Ah, sorry. Rose is Sir Lirin. She's an EBer that many of us have known for years now.

[Sir Lirin]

Yepyep. I was just taking too long joining here. 

[Sonic]

Ah ok. I can't recall if it was SMB or another forum that CmptrWz set it up so I randomly changed to my character Rose. He did a good job too, not only my name changed, but my avatar and gender changed too.

[animehuman]

We're talking about a leader who refuses to accept legit history, believes women are property and has even attempted to sue to U.S.A. I don't think we want him in charge of a nuclear program.

That being said, if the UN was to get off their lazy asses and start doing what they were meant to do, a compromise could be made that the project is in control (or strictly supervised) by UN Engineers/Inspectors. This could very well relieve "We don't trust you to screw things up" issue and over time as they prove they are not going for weapons and can handle it themselves, we withrdaw UN inspections.

He's Muslim. They believe those kinds of things, give him a break.

Also, some things you people might not know:

Back when we were about to head into Iraq to oust Saddam, the UN had actually threatened the very country they are present on with Oil/Food/Trade Embargos as they thought we Americans were just going to far in our efforts to stop terrorism.

Well, we went in anyway and the UN actually got backhanded when Iraq THANKED the US for taking out Saddam. (We put him into power, only proper for us to take him out)

The UN itself is a cancer that needs to be cut out and destroyed; failing that, have them move to France.. they'd love them - since the UN usually waves a white flag whenever they are about to fail at stuff.

We still have embargoes on Iraq. They have never been lifted, even to this day.

Some of our trust issues are not warrented, but concider this. We go OUT OF OUR WAY to send aid to countries, regardless of their financial ability, when natural disasters strike or massive destruction from human disasters occur. When 9/11 happened, despite it being the World Trade Center, not ONE COUNTRY offered aid. Anything we do to help better the world we are spit at by our allies. We did the right thing going to Iraq and getting rid of Saddom, regardless of weapons of mass destructions. We put that nut case in power and he goes off making mass graves. Now everyone else won't come to help rebuild Iraq because they didn't agree with us, so we have to stay and clean up. I want our troops out of Iraq but its not as simple as just leaving. Regardless if it makes the Terrorists feel they won, Iraq is too unstable right now for us to just withdraw. The UN should be there to help stable things up. They should have been there to help create a government that best suited Iraq's needs that wouldn't become a threat to other countries (yes, I'm saying Democracy may not be the best choice here).

As much as you say we shouldn't be getting involved in international affairs, think about the results of Nuclear programs. It's a threat to the entire world. As I said, just a few of these could kill all life on Earth. When someone is playing with something that affects other countries, those countries have a right to step in. If we were next door neighbors and I was a scientist playing with hydrogen fuel that if it went wrong could take out the entire block, wouldn't you want to STOP ME?

And lets go into things the US has intervened in not for fear or trust, but for simple "We want to help". After we took out Japan, we helped them rebuild. In Vietnam, we rebuilt schools for the children despite our troops being SHOT AT while do so. As pointed out, in Iraq we are helping them rebuild. The UN has not helped those in need. I forget what it was called but there was one time in Africa in the 1990's that genocide was taken place and the UN, being established to PREVENT THIS, ignored it.

In short, the UN is NOT doing its job and the US is trying its best to do stuff the UN should be doing. Don't go off blaming the US and saying they shouldn't be doing stuff because of the organization that was setup after WWII to do this kind of stuff won't get off its ass and HELP.

Getting rid of Saddam was unnecessary. We never forcibly removed Stalin did we? Nor did we 'successfully' remove Castro either. It would have been best to have one side wipe the other out.

We do nuclear tests anyway. Most of it's for weapons. The problem is that this is 2008, and developing nuclear power supplies is easier and safer than before.

We rebuild nations because we profit from it, not because we have to. Rebuilding is mostly pointless as it causes other nations to become reliant on aid (see: Africa).

The UN is not designed to stop international disputes.

[Caterfree10]

He's Muslim. They believe those kinds of things, give him a break.

...

The UN is not designed to stop international disputes.

So his religious beliefs excuse him from ignoring a part of history? Something that has been proven to have happened? Not buying that.

Now, wait a damn minute, then what was the UN created for? Last time I checked, the UN was created so we'd have less international incidents because we TALKED about our issues rather than throw bombs at each other. Granted, it's not working right now, but that's not the point.

As for everything else, my brain's not willing to work right now. OTL *flail*

[Sonic]

He's Muslim. They believe those kinds of things, give him a break.

The religion has NOTHING to do with it here. Just as you have one hell of a range in Christanity, you have a range in Muslims. The basic religion has nothing to say about this stuff, it doesn't even say Women are property and what not. That doesn't stop others from 'adding' their own rules.

Getting rid of Saddam was unnecessary. We never forcibly removed Stalin did we? Nor did we 'successfully' remove Castro either. It would have been best to have one side wipe the other out.

Unnecessary? We're talking about a man who does mass murder, that plays games with us when we are concerned that he is VIOLATING his treaty about weapons of mass destruction and supplying money to suicide bombers' family. That's unnecessary?

[Ghost]

I wanted to avoid responding, but these statements are outragious... first off:

Getting rid of Saddam was unnecessary. We never forcibly removed Stalin did we? Nor did we 'successfully' remove Castro either. It would have been best to have one side wipe the other out.

Why would we remove Stalin when we didn't put him into power?
Why would we remove Castro when we didn't put him into power?

WE put Saddam in power, so it's only proper that we remove him from power. Let's not forget, Anime, that we are partly responsible for him gasing his own people and for killing innocents..

We do nuclear tests anyway. Most of it's for weapons. The problem is that this is 2008, and developing nuclear power supplies is easier and safer than before.

The last confirmed nuclear test was in 1980. Remember: The Nevada Test site has been the location of 'all' nuclear tests, and according to my own father who has lived here in Vegas (which is only 65 miles from the test site) the last nuclear test he knows of was in 1980, even the underground nuclear tests were noticable from residents here in Vegas as they caused ground shakes.

Let's also not forget, Nevada is the only area that the miitary can 'safely' test nuclear weapons. Other states are either to small, or people live to close together. Texas can't afford it due to their enviroment, but we here can because our climate here is rather dry.

Also, the US is currently observing the CTBT - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed in Sept 1996

The only weapon currently close to actual nuclear is not nuclear at all, but depleted uranium used by our tanks. In fact, I can also confirm based on what I've read that the military is trying to develop a more powerful - non-uranium/nuclear shell that can deliver a heavier punch, but that wights a lot less.

We rebuild nations because we profit from it, not because we have to. Rebuilding is mostly pointless as it causes other nations to become reliant on aid (see: Africa).

Ok, first off, we've yet to profit from any rebuilding. When we rebuilt Japan, we didn't profit from it. When we helped rebuild Vietnam, we didn't profit from it. And now that we are helping to rebuild Iraq, we haven't profitted from that to.

Unless you call Japan handing over two of it's military ports, profiting.
Vietnam handing over one of it's ports and a city, profiting.
And Iraq giving us control of their national airport, along with their military, profiting.

The UN is not designed to stop international disputes

Actually, it is designed to 'interven' in an international dispute - most of which are handled by a countries embassy's, though the UN will interven and settle them if the need is required.

[Frozen Inferno]

Wow, this is the most involved a debate has gotten around here for.... months and months! This place almost feels alive now! *coughs and knocks wood* All right, time to throw out some points that might not otherwise be considered.

*ahem* You say that we do these things because it's our responsibility, but past experience shows that we usually do a horrible job at this. Vietnam was a bad move on our part. We went in to stop 'the horror of communism' and ended up with our butts whooped. We intervened in Japan and they are currently a booming economy, but they're so elitist it's almost funny. You can't even LIVE there unless you're a Japanese citizen or certified by one. We didn't even come CLOSE to succeeding in Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a joke that made us look like fools to the entire world.
We've done some pretty messed up things in our history. Do you remember way back when in WWI when after we defeated Germany our actions and policies in their country was a large cause of WWII? And even earlier than that when we were still colonizing this country and we practically wiped out the entire native culture just so we could live here ourselves? The only (or biggest anyway) difference between then and now is that we aren't quite as successful at what we do and we're pretending we do it for selfless reasons. Over half the instances so far quoted were done not from the goodness in our hearts but rather because we feared the 'domino effect' or something similar.

[animehuman]

Ok, first off, we've yet to profit from any rebuilding. When we rebuilt Japan, we didn't profit from it. When we helped rebuild Vietnam, we didn't profit from it. And now that we are helping to rebuild Iraq, we haven't profitted from that to.

Unless you call Japan handing over two of it's military ports, profiting.
Vietnam handing over one of it's ports and a city, profiting.
And Iraq giving us control of their national airport, along with their military, profiting.

Certain rich men have contracts overseas that pay them for rebuilding. Haliburton is the most popular one right now. Cheney and all the other stock holders are making millions off of 'rebuilding' Iraq.

WE put Saddam in power, so it's only proper that we remove him from power. Let's not forget, Anime, that we are partly responsible for him gasing his own people and for killing innocents..

Didn't matter. If Iraqi's wanted him out, they would have done it themselves. We put Bush into power. Why don't we 'remove' him too?

Actually, it is designed to 'interven' in an international dispute - most of which are handled by a countries embassy's, though the UN will interven and settle them if the need is required.

The UN has never done it's job apparently.

So his religious beliefs excuse him from ignoring a part of history? Something that has been proven to have happened? Not buying that.

Now, wait a damn minute, then what was the UN created for? Last time I checked, the UN was created so we'd have less international incidents because we TALKED about our issues rather than throw bombs at each other. Granted, it's not working right now, but that's not the point.

As for everything else, my brain's not willing to work right now. OTL *flail*

Muslims and Jews do not get along.

It only makes sense that he would deny the Holocaust. Besides, he's not the only one to have done so. You can just as easily deny the existence of Jesus.

Wow, this is the most involved a debate has gotten around here for.... months and months! This place almost feels alive now! *coughs and knocks wood* All right, time to throw out some points that might not otherwise be considered.

*ahem* You say that we do these things because it's our responsibility, but past experience shows that we usually do a horrible job at this. Vietnam was a bad move on our part. We went in to stop 'the horror of communism' and ended up with our butts whooped. We intervened in Japan and they are currently a booming economy, but they're so elitist it's almost funny. You can't even LIVE there unless you're a Japanese citizen or certified by one. We didn't even come CLOSE to succeeding in Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a joke that made us look like fools to the entire world.
We've done some pretty messed up things in our history. Do you remember way back when in WWI when after we defeated Germany our actions and policies in their country was a large cause of WWII? And even earlier than that when we were still colonizing this country and we practically wiped out the entire native culture just so we could live here ourselves? The only (or biggest anyway) difference between then and now is that we aren't quite as successful at what we do and we're pretending we do it for selfless reasons. Over half the instances so far quoted were done not from the goodness in our hearts but rather because we feared the 'domino effect' or something similar.

We didn't lose Vietnam, but we didn't win. We did however show people a different side of war, the one they're not used to seeing.
Japan's always been isolationist. Always.
lol @ Bay of Pigs.

[Caterfree10]

Muslims and Jews do not get along.

It only makes sense that he would deny the Holocaust. Besides, he's not the only one to have done so. You can just as easily deny the existence of Jesus.

I am well aware of that. Christians and Jews haven't exactly been buddy buddy over the ages either, same with Christians and Muslims (hell, I've read countless stories of Muslims killing Christians). But when something is written in history books and has been proven, you have one hell of a case to disprove. As for the Jesus thing, there is proof he did exist in the prescribed period of time. However, the religious ideas surrounding him are unable to be proven and still require faith from Christian followers.

[Frozen Inferno]

I think the case in point is that it's very easy to deny the existence of something you haven't seen. YOU are saying that he can't prove it didn't happen, not that he can't ignore it. And if we didn't lost that war, why did we end it by a full out retreat?

[Sonic]

I am well aware of that. Christians and Jews haven't exactly been buddy buddy over the ages either, same with Christians and Muslims (hell, I've read countless stories of Muslims killing Christians). But when something is written in history books and has been proven, you have one hell of a case to disprove. As for the Jesus thing, there is proof he did exist in the prescribed period of time. However, the religious ideas surrounding him are unable to be proven and still require faith from Christian followers.

I think it was the history channel or something similiar. They discussed if Jesus was in fact the son of God or was a genious in his own right. Theories of how he might have been smart enough to start a new way of 'thinking' in that time period to rally the people.

[Ghost]

Certain rich men have contracts overseas that pay them for rebuilding. Haliburton is the most popular one right now. Cheney and all the other stock holders are making millions off of 'rebuilding' Iraq.

Aha, 'certain rich men' have contracts, yes, also Haliburton is already well known as making money off this rebuild, sadly.

Didn't matter. If Iraqi's wanted him out, they would have done it themselves. We put Bush into power. Why don't we 'remove' him too?

Wait, it didn't matter? So it didn't matter that we put a man into power that was using bio-chemical weapons to kill this people, torture and enslave them, but to also kill those who disagree'd with him?
 

The UN has never done it's job apparently.

The UN stopped doing it job shortly before the end of Desert Storm.

Oh, and how much do you know about Desert Storm? (Gulf War)

[Frozen Inferno]

I know it was our first involvement with Iraq in which we put this guy into power in the first place. Other than that I've honestly no clue. It happened before I was old enough to care about this sorta thing. (I actually think it was before I was even born...)