Can we discuss this .....

[R K Singh]

U.S. Rejects UN Inspectors Despite Iraq Resolutions.

[Thomas Paul]

Blix is a jerk and the US doesn't want him near anything other than a hotel bar. Blix demonstrated that he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap. Once he's gone in June, UN inspectors will be let back in.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...UN inspectors will be let back in.

I wish before that US doesnt find any WMD
Now serious, but what I heard that he proved some documents provided by US false/forged.
And US never denied those blames :roll:

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Blix is a jerk and the US doesn't want him near anything other than a hotel bar. Blix demonstrated that he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap. Once he's gone in June, UN inspectors will be let back in.

Or maybe there was nothing to find... seemed strange that the Iraqis did not use any of the WMD's they were supposed to have.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
Or maybe there was nothing to find... seemed strange that the Iraqis did not use any of the WMD's they were supposed to have.

There is hypothysis that Saddam did not use it because he wanted to be remain Hero in Arab world
Yes it will take time this to be theory.

[John Smith]

There is hypothysis that Saddam did not use it because he wanted to be remain Hero in Arab world
Another theory is that Saddam made a deal with Rumsfield, -- Saddam would not use the WMD, and Rumsfield would let Saddam leave Iraq unharmed.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Why waste your time arguing with the security council? It is clear that members have other agendas in mind than the plight of the Iraqi people.
No matter what is found, Al Jazeera will say the CIA put it there.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
No matter what is found, Al Jazeera will say the CIA put it there.

Why wouln't we trust Al Jazeera? As US government provided fake documents , as the US army did not found any WMD until now. US is now prooving that there was no WMD in Iraq. If I was them I would feel bad in my shoes.
What I don't understand is, we have a Country that have gone to war despite the world opinion. This country is now blaming publicly France ( while until now we did not see any good reason to go to war) and refusing the UN inspectors to come back to Iraq. Where is the International right in here, the only thing I can see is the law of the strength.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
we have a Country that have gone to war despite the world opinion.

I've asked before, but I'll ask again... Why on earth should we make decisions based on what countries like France, Russia, Germany, China, Canada, and Belgium think, never mind "world opinion". Hell, most of these countries were only worried about checking US power and making sure Saddam stayed in control.

This country is now blaming publicly France

And they should be singled out. They placed Americans at risk for their own selfish goals. All they were interested in was improving their own power base, obstructing the US, and maintaining their ties with the Baathist regime. They were not merely stating their objections to backing up UNSC resolutions, they actively campaigned to obstruct us. I for one will not forget the large percentage of citizens from these nations and others, including France, who not only preferred to see the Dictator continue to brutalize his people, but also prayed for his military to triumph and inflict huge casualties on us.

Where is the International right in here, the only thing I can see is the law of the strength.

Since the international community has emasculated itself and is unable/unwilling to come to a decision and take action on any serious issue, the strong democracies will be forced to look out for their own interests.
Here's an ineresting article to read.

Some of our allies wanted to show us who�s boss. France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico and others stood up to us, both at the United Nations and within their borders, telling us we were wrong and worse. Americans grew weary of nations, some of whom can�t guarantee keeping their own power on for any 24-hour period, telling us that our president was stupid and our motives evil. Like Bush, the people responded by talk that became action and our import spending habits were altered. We started buying American and businesses within these countries are starting to hope we are just kidding.

I reject the widely held notion that The United States as the lone superpower is also �The World�s Police Force�. I more accurately see us as �The World�s Parents�. So the next time our petulant spoiled, no-skills brats refuse to clean their own room, we should let them live in their squalor, especially when they later kick us out of the room after the dirty work is done.

[Mapraputa Is]

I more accurately see us as "The World’s Parents".
What an imagination. America isn't "The World's Parent", it's "The World's Kid". Unless I forgot how this country was formed...
And you cannot become anybody's parent just because you want to. You cannot even become a policeman solely on your own will. You can only become a friend or a bully.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
There is hypothysis that Saddam did not use it because he wanted to be remain Hero in Arab world
Another theory is that Saddam made a deal with Rumsfield, -- Saddam would not use the WMD, and Rumsfield would let Saddam leave Iraq unharmed.

Obviously, Saddam achieved his goals when he used chemical weapons against his own people, but what goal would have been achieved by using chemical weapons against American soldiers that were wearing chemical weapons gear? Wouldn't it be rather stupid to use chemical weapons when it is clear that such weapons would not be effective? What would be the point?
Saddam knew that he could not defeat the United States on the battlefield but he did believe that he could defeat the United States in the battle for world opinion. If he could make the war bloody enough and force the deaths of enough civilians and force the war to drag on for a long time then the United States army could be stopped before reaching Baghdad. Basically, it would have been the military equivalent of Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope defense that defeated George Foreman. In other words, Saddam planned to take a beating in the early stages of the war with the hope that the world would come to his rescue before baghdad fell. Saddam's rope-a-dope plan failed because the coalition war plan bypassed the battles that Saddam wanted to fight in the southern cities. Without the ugly street fighting in the south the rope-a-dope strategy didn't have an opportunity to work before the coalition forces reached Baghdad.
Since chemical weapons would not be effective against soldiers wearing chemical weapons gear and because the use of chemical weapons would not contribute to the success of Saddam's war plan then why would he use WMD in that particular situation?

[R K Singh]

Obviously, Saddam achieved his goals when he used chemical weapons against his own people
In which centuary ??
but what goal would have been achieved by using chemical weapons against American soldiers that were wearing chemical weapons gear?
LOL (I have no counter argument),
How many missile have been used in GW-2 by Iraq?
Very much possible that "chemical weapons gear mask" protects also from missile.
the hope that the world would come to his rescue before baghdad fell.
Another hypothesis.

[Don Kiddick]

What did the coalition (claim to) find in Iraq (with regards to WMD) ?
You would have thought they would have found some fairly conclusive evidence... from some of the posts above I'm guessing they didn't.
D.

[R K Singh]

I am not getting link, in which N. Korea, said that he will not follow UN, because Saddam followed UN and now he has no weapon to fight back. And UN is no where to save him.

[SJ Adnams]

There was a report that UK forces found russian cruise missiles in iraq. however there is so much stuff that has been made up (forged documents etc) that it's difficult to believe anyone.
I'm sure we'll see a story that Saddam was spotted with Bin Laden and Lord Lucan taking afternoon tea in moritania before too long.

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Simon Lee:
I'm sure we'll see a story that Saddam was spotted with Bin Laden and Lord Lucan taking afternoon tea in moritania before too long.

Don't talk crazy, Lord Lucan doesn't like tea !

[SJ Adnams]

dohh, so thats why he killed his tea lady!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Here's an ineresting article to read.

Yes, really nice article. Thanks God, it was not too long.

Next time, I�d like those kids to ask us personally (hands and knees would be a nice touch), say �pretty please�, and put it in writing.

The only line which needs attention is above one. Everything else was crap IMO.
In other words, above quote says, dont poke nose everywhere.
I dont like burger, dont make me to eat it, just because you like it.[I dont want to be secular, why should I be secular, I am muslim and will remain muslim]
AW just wondering, who has given rights to be parents of brat kids??
Why on earth should we make decisions based on what countries like France, Russia, Germany, China, Canada, and Belgium think....
Why US should worry who is making Nuclear bomb other than him ?
Why US should worry that other country is ruled by a dictator ?
Why US wants to be parent/cop of world ?
You are right, US should not worry, not only abt China, Germany, France, Russia, .... but also rest of other countries too.
When GW-2 was going on, search Yahoo news service, bidding was going on in US for oil wells. Did I hear that war was for liberating Iraqies who are saying now to US to go to hell and we dont believe in Secularism and we will remain Islamic country.......
Wonder ... really what US has gain in the GW-2 apart from oil ?
Is still someone chanting that war was not for oil?
Oh yes, it was for making Iraq secular and give freedom to Iraqies from there own ruler.
As I mentioned earlier and again repeating it, its not necessary that the rule which are good there will be applied everywhere.
US might be feel proud of having striptease clubs, but its not necessary that all countries will feel proud of it. They dont want Striptease clubs. Why do you want to give it ?

[Cindy Glass]

Why would they want StripTease clubs, when they can have their own Harem .

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[b]You can only become a friend or a bully.

Is it just a coincidence that many children view their parents in this light?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Why would they want StripTease clubs, when they can have their own Harem .

Men are men
They will find some legal way to please their eyes and .....

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Is it just a coincidence that many children view their parents in this light?

But why do you want to be parents of 30 yr old man ? and that is when, you are not his parent ?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I've asked before, but I'll ask again... Why on earth should we make decisions based on what countries like France, Russia, Germany, China, Canada, and Belgium think, never mind "world opinion".

Because those actions do have impacts on the whole world, it does imply us in the process. Another thing, is that US was trying to imply the whole world in the process of war. US was trying to get a resolution (hence trying to involve all UN members), but once we say No, US says who cares about them, their advice doesn't count. US was the one who first took other countries "advice", but couldn't accept a No.

the strong democracies will be forced to look out for their own interests

That's exactly the point, that's exactly what US is doing for decades.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
US might be feel proud of having striptease clubs, but its not necessary that all countries will feel proud of it. They dont want Striptease clubs. Why do you want to give it ?

Americans are proud of the fact that our federal government allows for freedom of religion and a separation of the church from the federal government. However, the citizens of local communities can choose to regulate their individual lives and their communities based on their own views. For example, the
Amish people of Pennsylvania don't believe in the use of modern technology such as electricity and the internal combustion engine. Instead, they live today just as they did in the eighteenth century. Most Americans prefer not to live like the Amish, but our federal government does not prevent them from living according to their religious views.
Of course, the federal government does set some limits on the laws that can be set up by local communities. For example, Islamic law requires the amputation of the right hand of anyone that is caught stealing. No such law could be adopted by any city in America because such a law would violate a person's constitutional right to protection against cruel or unusual punishment. Do you find this sort of restriction objectionable? Similarly, women in Afghanistan were routinely beaten in public if they failed to dress properly. No such law could be adopted by an American city. Do you find this sort of restriction objectionable? In Afghanistan women were denied health care because men were not permitted to treat women and only men could be doctors. No such law could be adopted by an American city. Do you see that as an example of the inadequacies of secular government?
The secular federal government of United States allows for religious freedom but does not force any particular religion on American citizens. What is your objection to the form of secular government instituted in America? Do you really want to go around chopping off hands and beating women in the streets? If so then why?
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Jason Menard]

Because those actions do have impacts on the whole world, it does imply us in the process.
Yes, we live in a global age. Actions, and just as importantly inactions, have great impact on many. However "right" and "wrong" is not a popularity contest. The position of these appeasers was either anti-US or pro-Saddam, both equally useless positions. In no instance was the stance of any of these governments pro-Iraqi people. There's an American phrase that seems applicable over this whole UN farce - "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".
Another thing, is that US was trying to imply the whole world in the process of war.
Absolutely. We were trying to get the world to stand up against a dictator. We were trying to get the world to back up its words with action. Yet again, most of the world failed miserably. Instead, mindless anti-Americanism along with self-interest in maintaining the Saddam regime took precedence over the issues.
US was trying to get a resolution (hence trying to involve all UN members)
Let's be clear. We had 17 resolutions already. We were trying to get them enforced. Bush went to bat for Blair and Howard to see if we could get yet one more resolution pushed through which they felt would be politically advantageous to their positions back home. France torpedoed that plan by among other things, stating that they would veto any resolution. It made the point moot, and the idea of presenting yet another resolution was abandoned.
Let's not think for a minute that the point of the resolution was to "seek permission". We had all the "permission" we needed in previous resolutions. No, the point of the resolution was to present a more politically advantageous situation for some of our coalition partners.
That's exactly the point, that's exactly what US is doing for decades.
And will continue to do so as long as other nations refuse to fulfill their responsibilities. We have learned our lesson regarding the futility of working through the UN on security issues. It will be quite some time before the US again chooses to place any faith in such a yammering toothless body.
By the way, if anybody knows of any successful UN peacekeeping or UN nation building missions, particularly where the US did not play a large role, I would be interested in hearing about them.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Is it just a coincidence that many children view their parents in this light?

First, I am not sure how many children refuse to admit their parents as such. Are you talking about American children? Do you have any statistics? Second, yes, how children view their parents is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that one cannot become a parent for another adult (!) only because he/she wants to.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
It doesn't change the fact that one cannot become a parent for another adult (!) only because he/she wants to.

It's just a metaphor, Map.

[Mapraputa Is]

Metaphor is not "just". There is a theory that metaphors are the primary tools how we understand the world, when we do not have more developed tools.
Metaphors We Live by
I was going to write a review for this book, but was too lazy. Maybe I should write, I mentioned this book too often lately...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
other nations refuse to fulfill their responsibilities.

others nation refuse to fulfill their responsibilities against whom ??
Where does US comes in to picture of not fulfilling their responsiblity.
What US gains by removing a dictator of other country?
[I know what it gained in reallity, but I want to know unknown things which US gained from it.]
We have learned our lesson regarding the futility of working through the UN on security issues.
I would really like to know what are the security issues US faced because of UN.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
lot of logical talk..

I have said it 100 times and let me repeat it again....
America is not the only country in this world which has freedom of religion.
America is not the only country in this world which prefer not to live like the Amish.
America is not the only democratic country in this world.
And what ever you think of America. It is not the only country.
Now let us talk...
because such a law would violate a person's constitutional right to protection against cruel or unusual punishment
Do US court sentence death penality ?
What is your objection to the form of secular government instituted in America?
Do you know ginger is very good for health.
But I dont like its taste.
One cant force other to eat it, just because its good for health.
I have to learn by myself that its good for my health. You cant put it in my mouth and say chew it, its good for health.
I will spit it out on the face.
Islamic law requires the amputation of the right hand of anyone that is caught stealing.
Just wondering, why there should be punishment for any crime?
I think, punishment is given so that no one repeat that mistake/crime again.
If their society thinks that chopping off right hand will prevent stealing. And which actually does.
Why you want to impose your rules on them.
Their pet animal might be Camel. I cant say that you have Cow instead of Camel. Because cows work fine for me, it will work also fine for you.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Do US court sentence death penality ?

The crime of murder is prosecuted at the state level. Some states have a death penalty while others don't. The federal government allows the citizens of each state, county, and city to develop their own criminal laws. I personally don't support the death penalty because I believe that life in prison is more punishing than death by lethal injection. Apparently, my view is in the minority.

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Do you know ginger is very good for health.
But I dont like its taste.
One cant force other to eat it, just because its good for health.
I have to learn by myself that its good for my health. You cant put it in my mouth and say chew it, its good for health.
I will spit it out on the face.

I am arguing in favor of a government that protects the personal liberties of all ethnic groups within the multi-ethnic nation of Iraq. Your are arguing in favor of a theocratic dictatorship that would not protect the personal liberties of the ethnic minorities in Iraq. How do your comments support your argument in favor of an oppressive theocratic dictatorship?

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Islamic law requires the amputation of the right hand of anyone that is caught stealing. Just wondering, why there should be punishment for any crime?
I think, punishment is given so that no one repeat that mistake/crime again.
If their society thinks that chopping off right hand will prevent stealing. And which actually does.
Why you want to impose your rules on them?

Because I believe that the constitution and the federal government should protect individuals from cruel and unusual forms of punishment imposed by the states. In terms of Iraq, I believe that millions of Iraqis would appreciate a federal government that would protect them from cruel and unusual forms of oppression that could otherwise be impossed by a rival ethnic group.
Maybe you should give peace a chance in Iraq before you start advocating civil war between rival ethnic groups. How many more years of war do you want? Why do you oppose peaceful coexistence within a multi-ethnic nation?
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Maybe you should give peace a chance in Iraq before you start advocating civil war between rival ethnic groups. How many more years of war do you want? Why do you oppose peaceful coexistence within a multi-ethnic nation?

Interesting that you bring this up. Watching the media and surfing the Internet forums, I get the impression that many would take some kind of perverse pleasure if everything in Iraq goes to hell. It's not so much that people want Iraqi society to fail I don't think, it's that they want the US to fail. If others suffer along the way that seems to be fine with them, as long as they can have their views vindicated and the US is made to look bad. Or maybe I'm way off base here.
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Maybe you should give peace a chance in Iraq before you start advocating civil war between rival ethnic groups. How many more years of war do you want? Why do you oppose peaceful coexistence within a multi-ethnic nation?

There is an alternative solution possible. Yesterday I read in Philip Greenspun's Weblog
Breaking Up Countries Where Citizens Hate Each Other
"The only thing more shocking than the airplane engine control falling apart that happened during the trip south was reading an editorial in the Washington Post by Ralph Peters entitled "Must Iraq Stay Whole". This is the first time that I've seen any sign in the mass media that anyone else has the same thoughts that occurred to me last year regarding Afghanistan (see the Boston-Alaska-Baja-Boston trip report) and this year regarding countries such as Nigeria and the Sudan (see the Israel essay).
In the old days a good argument for being large would have been that a country could thereby defend itself against aggression by other large countries. In today's world, however, where even the most armed-to-the-teeth Third World government can be unseated in a few weeks by the U.S. military, it doesn't make sense for people who hate each other to live together in one country."

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
the US is made to look bad.

I was avoiding this thread .. but looks like some where I fail to communicate my agenda of this thread.
First I said that US should allow UN inspectors to inspect. But everything was blamed on Blix. OK.
Then I tried to say that why someone should try to impose his rules on someone else.
But as dear Jason mentioned that everyone wants US to look bad.
But its not true.
To make you all to come out of US. I am creating a false story.
Tomorrow France stands up and says I want to be "world parent". I want all countries to have diplomacy like France has.
And to start my parentship, I choose Pakistan. Pakistan has dictator and I want to remove 'Mushu'.
France says, till I dont kill/destroy Mushu, he is not happy.
France says, I dont care what world says(world means US/ england/.....). I dont care what UN says. I just dont want dictatorship on this earth and I will start my mission with Pakistan.
My views are still same...
Why France wants to impose democracy in Pakistan, if their own people are not intrested in it.
My views are still same...
Why France wants to be World Parent ??
So I hope you guys are happy now. Now no one wants to make US look bad.
Now we can make France as bad as YOU want.
But my questions are still unanswered.
Why one country wants to be Parent ?
Why one country wants to impose his rules/laws on other country?
No NO .. I am not takling abt US. You can replce that one country with any country... let us take India.
I dont mind till I get my answer.
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Just read the whole article.

America has stopped the torture, the rapes, the imprisonment of children to coerce their parents, the maiming, the true squelching of speech, and mass murder of some citizens of Iraq. We’ve brought the potential of infrastructure upgrade, modern economy, freedom of religion, and true representation by elected officials. Now they tell us they don’t want a secular democracy, but an Islamic state. Talk about repeating bad habits….

Jason, if you mentioned this article, I assume you agree with this???

And when all gets out of hand again, we will be expected to go in and clean the room again. Next time, I’d like those kids to ask us personally (hands and knees would be a nice touch), say "pretty please", and put it in writing.

That's a wonderful idea. Very original also. Do you believe it will happen? Do you realy believe the USA will wait for invitaion?
Jason, I just wonder, do you realize how arrogant and scornful all this sound? How can the USA "liberate" anybody with such disparaging attitude? Is this what you call "liberation"? Do you still wonder why many question moral grounds of your "liberation"?

[Jason Menard]

Jason, if you mentioned this article, I assume you agree with this???
Not completely. For example, some Iraqis are insisting on a secular democracy, while some Iraqis are insisting on a (Shiite) theocracy. Since the nation is made up of many diverse groups, and since only a federal system will keep the nation whole (which is necessary to prevent further warfare in the region), there will be no theocracy. Do I think governments that aren't secular are bad ideas destined to cause far more problems than they solve? Absolutely.
Jason, I just wonder, do you realize how arrogant and scornful all this sound?
Yes. I also realize that the author does not reflect US government policy. On the other hand, I don't think it would be going too far to state that he's probably expressing a level of exasperation felt by many.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The position of these appeasers was either anti-US or pro-Saddam, both equally useless positions. In no instance was the stance of any of these governments pro-Iraqi people.

So there is no intermediate level, we cannot be anti-Saddam, pro-Iraqui people, anti-US Foreign policy, anti-France foreign policy at the same time?

There's an American phrase that seems applicable
over this whole UN farce - "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

Just like said Jesus Christ (and long after G.W. Bush):" You are with us or against us" (something like that)
It does mean that if we don't follow US actions, we probably will be the next target of economic, military,... sanctions. That sounds a little hegemonic, from that point of view UN and other organizations become useless as there is no more dialogue. From that point of view there is just followers and outlaws. Of course, it is not acceptable.

We were trying to get the world to stand up against a dictator. We were trying to get the world to back up its words with action. Yet again, most of the world failed miserably. Instead, mindless anti-Americanism along with self-interest in maintaining the Saddam regime took precedence over the issues.

Most countries of the world stood up against the dictator. They just thought that it wasn't time for war, they thought that there was other alternatives, they thought that the UN inspectors were doing a good job. And the 3 weeks of war proove it. Iraq wasn't dangerous at all, until now we haven't seen any WMD. Which seems to proove that the inspectors job was successfull. So what was the war about? Getting rid of Saddam and putting another muppet that will trade oil with US, no matter if this new muppet is a dictator or not. From when does the US govt cares about dictators? It's all about oil and zone of influence.

Let's be clear. We had 17 resolutions already. We were trying to get them enforced.

That's what other countries were trying to do with UN inspectors. It seems like the job was almost succesfully achieved. Of course those resolutions were never talking about getting rid of Saddam. Which in fact was what US was searching for. Of course, getting rid of Saddam couldn't be achieved with UN inspectors. And what about resolutions against Israel? I saw that US send them also some bombs, but they were packaged like a gift (6 billions dollar/year). That is how US achieve their search for equality and justice, that's how anti-US feelings raise.

France torpedoed that plan by among other things, stating that they would veto any resolution. It made the point moot, and the idea of presenting yet another resolution was abandoned.

France was not the only country that would hade voted against the resolutions and Russia would have vetoed the resolutions. So how to explain that unfair,aggressive stance that US is adopting against France and generally against countries not blindly following?

Let's not think for a minute that the point of the resolution was to "seek permission". We had all the "permission" we needed in previous resolutions. No, the point of the resolution was to present a more politically advantageous situation for some of our coalition partners

I don't have the same vision. None of the already voted resolutions was allowing the use of the military solution. IMHO, US was indeed looking for permission to gain legitimity, and more of that to gain funds for war.
[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

[Mapraputa Is]

On the other hand, I don't think it would be going too far to state that he's probably expressing a level of exasperation felt by many.
Exasperation from what?

[Thomas Paul]

I don't want to get involved in this because we have been thorugh this all before to no point but...
My own theory as to why Iraq didn't use WMDs against the US troops is that Saddam and his sons died in that first bombing on that first night and only he and his sons had the authority to order the use of WMDs.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
But my questions are still unanswered.
Why one country wants to be Parent ?
Why one country wants to impose his rules/laws on other country?
No NO .. I am not takling abt US. You can replce that one country with any country... let us take India.
I dont mind till I get my answer.