Corinne -
I am so glad you came back to answer my questions! You are a very brave woman to come onto a board which uses a language other than your own. The effort you put out to be understood really shows that you are willing to take on challenges that I know I would not want to take on! Thank you!
Ok. I will try to answer these for you.
You believe that Asia is too prosperous, but the US is not?
Not in that way ... US is properous because it is a control-freak (the monney comes from manipulation - France do that also ... they are all the same)
Ok, so I think what you are saying is that the US only has money because we manipulate it away from others?
How do we do that?
You believe the American military is dying because of America's desire to rule the world?
Yes I do
I believe that our military knows the combat risks when they enlist in the armed forces. Additionally, our current military is strictly voluntary - in that we have not had an active draft since the early 1970's. Anyone who was forced to enlist back then has had plenty of opportunities to get out. Those who have stayed, have stayed because they want to stay. It's not as if we forced any of the troops in Iraq to serve, nor did we tell them that they would never die in the line of duty. It is horribly sad that anyone has died in this war and not just Americans and the troops of our allies. But these people did know the risks associated with being in the military and willingly took them on.
For what it is worth, I think a whole lot less blood would have been shed if the Iraqi's were not receiving arms in spite of UN Resolutions which prohibited this activity. Some argue that the US has provided arms to Iraq as well. This is true. We have done that. But when we did it, there were no UN Resolutions prohibiting us from doing so. And for what it is worth, some of the parties who illegally sold weapons to Iraq had signed the resolution prohibiting it. What is even sadder is that many of those were our alleged "allies." I dare say that had this happened in reverse, world opinion would be completely different than it is now. For example, if the US illegally provided arms to Iraq, and our "allies" went to war without us - and it was their troops who died at the hands of illegal American weaponry - the whole world would be blaming the US for the deaths of those soldiers. But the saddest thing of all is that I believe the war could have been avoided all together if the UN had enforced any of their 30-some odd resolutions over more than a 10-year span, instead of rendering them just as useless as the resolution prohibiting weapons sales to Iraq.
I do not think the US was being a bully in Iraq. The US saw the ineffectiveness of the UN, and realized that the UN would never walk the walk. The UN is good at talking, and, apparently, writing resolutions, but they sure didn't enforce any of the ones involving Iraq. However, again, I believe that if there were at least 30 Resolutions involving the US, no one would have waited at least 10 years to make sure any of them were enforced.
In regards to America trying to rule the world, if this were our true intention, why didn't we turn Afghanistan into one of the American states? Why didn't we do the same for Japan or Germany?
Are you saying that we are sending our children to factories to make shoes, and that the only people that will be able to afford them will be in China?
I'm trying to say that we a running to a reverse situation ... (but well I've tried to explain already ... and failed don't feel like to try again)
Ok. I think what you are trying to say is specific brands of shoes are made in China, and those companies are exploiting the labor of children. After barely paying the kids, they sell the shoes at embarassing profits, and the only people who can afford to buy them are the wealthy people of the US. And by purchasing these shoes, we are continuing child exploitation in China. Correct?
On one hand, I do not condone exploitation period - no matter which form it takes. On the other hand, I find myself asking whether the chineese children need to work in order to help support their families, and if so, where would they be working if they didn't have the shoe factory? If there were somewhere else the children could work doing essentially the same work, would they be paid any worse or better than what the shoe company is paying them? It could be that these children are happy to work for the wages they are being offered because their other choice is to not work at all and not make any money. Additionally, even though I don't like unions, this is exactly why unions exist in the US today, and if they are being so horribly exploited, why are they not trying to unionize for better pay, OR why is their government not making laws to protect these children? Again, I do not condone exploitation in any form, and I do NOT condone these companies making huge profits off those whom they exploit, but there are always two sides to the story.
The thing to keep in mind here are the people making the money in this particular situation is a private company - not the US government, so I feel that no matter what kind of profits the companies are making, or how they are making these profits, it is their choice whether they want to share any of their profits or not. Can you tell me which company you are referring to, because I intend to boycott their products?
Are you asking me why I'm mad (which I'm not) at someone who has been robbed, and not at the ones who did the robbing? If so, can you please tell me who the robber is, and who the robber's victim(s) is/are?
the robber are those who are taking advantage of the sitution (WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE - THE POOR UNDER OUR FEET - JUST LIKE WE ARE UNDER THOSE 10% PEOPLE FEET) those 10 % owe us money (I don't care where they are from) and we owe those poor people money too ... (in fact the money that rich people stole us) ... means sharing 40 % togeter (for 90 %) instead 90 % for 90 % ... (we have no reason to walk on those people heads because we do benefite of the systeme till now ... we are just begining to pay and to really feel the bill because we are bab in economy - and are not competitive for real - to the point using protecting buissiness rules, laws, rates, and taxes on importation) ... that makes the product more expensive for us by the way (for control and compensation that doesn't bring that much jobs and not the right ones to boost the economy) ... as you can see (no way for us to win that way in this game)
Maybe we don't care those people are dying, but those who are influencing the world to lead don't care either, because they can dye ... we'll still be there to do the job cheaper !
I think this is where our fundamental differences lie, if I am reading what you wrote correctly. I think you are trying to say that because "rich people" take advantage of those who are not as wealthy as they are, then they owe those of us who were taken advantage of money?
Are you saying that others countries want us to share with them and we are being selfish for not doing so?
My question here is :
SHARING WHAT ??? ... IT IS THEIR'S ... Not OURS !
... what is that ??? .. (just think about it for real)Now if one of us save his neigboor's life for example, should he expect him to give him his property ... (EXCUSE ME ! it's a bit WEIRD and HORRID ATTITUDE) can't you just wait for a gift !!! can't you just do if for a THANK YOU VERY MUCH BY HEART !!! ... WE NEED MONEY FOR THAT ? why did they go their ? Do you understand my point of view
If I were to save someone's life, it would never occur to me to expect a gift in return. I am quite satisfied with a thank you for anything I've ever done for anyone - especially when there was never any expectation of payment to begin with. Now - as far as my employer goes, I expect to be paid a certain amount because we have an agreement for them to pay me in return for a job well done. A simple "thank you" from my employer would not be adequate for me. Hmmm.. I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that America wants a "gift" for saving somebody's life?
Are you trying to say that our government was aware the 9-11 attacks were coming, how they were to be carried out, on which day and at which time, and that we ALLOWED the attacks for a reason to go to war with ... someone?
Did you check ? cause I can't do it for you ... I mean you are not suppose to believe me on word ... or maybe you already made your mind on this matter, I don't know ... Mine is quiet made on this ... THEY KNEW ... (AND THEY JUST COULD NOT TAKE IT AS FLUFF AT LEAST AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK the second or at least the 3rd WOULD NEVER HAPPEN) I've told you why I'm thinking that ... (They won't tell the truth anyway ... but they acted as if they were guilty ... so ... I stand here so far)
It makes no sense whatsoever that our President would have allowed these attacks to occur if he had known about them in advance. First of all, our nation was just beginning an economic recovery. The 9-11 attacks hurt that recovery. Second of all, why in the world would we want someone to blow up our military headquarters? If the plane that struck the Pentagon had landed just a little further, the entire building and all our important military personnel would have been completely annihilated! If we allowed 9-11 to happen in order to get involved in a war, why would we allow our military headquarters to be a target? Additionally, the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvania intended to fly into the White House, where they expected our President to be. Why in the world would we allow our President to be killed in order to get in a war? Aren't other nations accusing Bush of being the one wanting to start wars? How does it make logical sense that he was going to allow himself, his wife, and his closest cabinet members to be targets of this attack?! It doesn't make sense. The fact of the matter is that although we knew for years that the possibility of something like 9-11 could happen any day, no one bothered to take preventative measures - including Presidents who were in office prior to Mr. Bush. As far as not doing anything between the first and second attack, I can assure you that no matter how well prepared an army is, they are going to have trouble defending themselves when they are under a surprise attack. The second plane came only 10 minutes after the first one. There simply wasn't enough time to prevent the next attack. As far as the third attack goes, there were a lot of airplanes in the air. If you were trying to find a potential attacker, could you tell which one of those planes was the one that was going to attack the Pentagon in enough time to prevent it? I know I couldn't, and I think it is unreasonable to assume that someone else could either. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the US government allowed 9-11 to happen.
Are you saying our President cheated France?
No ... Again ... who cares about France ! I'm talking about the world and American citizens
Ok. So you are saying that American citizens have cheated the world?
Again I'm sorry for the missunderstanding
hope I've been able to make myself clear
Also ... Thank you
There is no need to apologize! Again, I think you are very brave to come to this board to share your point of view! You're doing a great job, and I'm glad I've gotten the chance to talk with you!
:-)
growedup
