Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Political Issues
Results so far:
| No | 71% | 110 votes | Total: 154 votes | |
| Yes | 29% | 44 votes |
No
Created on: September 22, 2008
No, I really don't think reparations to those countries should be paid. I agree the countries are torn to pieces and lives are lost and that is what is so horrible but, the U. S. has loaned (or given) money to countries which hasn't been paid back since WWI. I don't really think the U. S. would pressure any country for money that is owed us and since it has been that long, I would just consider it a write-off.
Would the countries rather be under a dictatorship and have their people murdered by their leader as with genocide? I know I wouldn't. Picture yourself being herded out of your home by soldiers with bayonets just because you are a Jewish girl or boy. Picture yourself being separated from your little girl or boy, never knowing what is to become of them. There is a movie that would give you some insight to this. The movie is "Sophie's Choice".
Personally, I'd rather live in a demolished shack and forage for food than to have to live that way. God forbid!
It is best to rid the countries of such monsters as Hitler, Hussein and the whole shebang. I would even include the deranged leaders of North Korea and Sudan.
Certainly, during World War II, England and other countries were demolished but, in the long run, we see where those countries are today and they are not under dictatorships. They are free to do as they please and that is because the U. S. military was brought in to help.
Don't they know that the families of the servicemen, who were killed, are just devastated to have the news brought to them that their son died fighting to keep another country free? Now, how could money replace a son or daughter?
If I'm not mistaken, billions of dollars have already been spent helping reconstruct these countries and more and more are being spent in Iraq and it just goes on and on and on. Our troops are still there and being killed every day, construction companies are there building better buildings than they had before. And, I know, that the American civil workers wonder every day if they will get the job done and make it home in one piece.
But, they continue to build and the suicide bombers continue to tear down and kill.
Why would a country ask for reparation when their own missiles and bombers have caused as much of the damage as the U. S. military? Sure, innocent people were killed but, our military are just as innocent as those people and that's the shame of it all.
Every country knows the U. S. has money and when aid is sent to countries stricken by disasters, I am happy that it could be done. The problem there is not knowing if the aid is actually going to the victims or the military of that country and that would be the same if reparations were paid - would it go to the proper people or would the military jump in and take it all?
When the U. S. gets through paying all these restitutions, am I going to have my little Social Security check that wouldn't make a hill of beans to anyone but me? Or is it going to a foreign country? And, what about the millions of U. S. citizens who have no health insurance?
Or homes?
Learn more about this author, Volecia Plafcan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Created on: September 07, 2007
Of course, America should pay for the damage it inflicts on other countries. Although America often has ended up giving economic assistance to countries where we have fought, if it were automatic, the neo-cons amongst us might not be quite so eager to undertake pre-emptive strikes. Warring on another country is serious business and if America can attack at will, without having to be financially responsible for the damage caused, there is no check on neo-con intervention. Going to battle in foreign lands should be much more difficult than it has been. There needs to be some balance to the war mongering from Washington, D.C. and a requirement to pay war reparations would be a good place to start.
America should use its satellite eyes to mark and follow up on real bombing damage, inadvertent artillery collateral damage and intensive combat war zones in order to ensure that all who should be compensated are in fact. Particularly, when reconstruction after a war involves more fighting and killing and sabotage potentially appears around every corner, it is important to record and document collateral damage. Without that designation, America does not compensate for damage incurred.
In a country America has been occupying for over five years, different areas of Iraq are conquered and released into "no man's land". It is a unique strategy akin to fishing by capture and release. It is a policy for endless war, because the land is not held. It is taken and let loose again. It is no wonder there are insurgent safe houses available throughout Iraq. Most of Iraq is liberated from American control soon after it is secured.
US military officers now acknowledge that methods learned from Vietnam had been forgotten and had to be relearned again. That is an amazing criticism and it is made up through the general level. How could insurgency and guerrilla warfare knowledge be lost so quickly? Colin Powell was in Vietnam, so presumably were the other high level generals! Even those who weren't have got to have awareness and knowledge that fighting insurgencies is different from fighting conventional armies. Ironically, originally the US military was the insurgency and guerrillas against the British "redcoats".
Unless America bribes foreign nationals to forgive our heavy handed treatment and priority to warfare, instead of economic development, we are destined to make many enemies. Nobody likes people who destroy the property of another. If an Iraqi sustains damage from the invasion and mop up operations and he is not compensated, he certainly would be angry with America. You don't win wars by making locals angry.
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.