Well now. I was going to try to avoid controversy on this board, but the opportunity to express myself on this issue is too good to refuse.

I am a New Zealander who takes a keen interest in international affairs. My opinions are as follows:

America can never win in the eyes of much of the world, no matter what they do. That's part of being the top dog.

When America tries to help countries, it's accused of meddling and arrogance, and when it leaves them alone, it's accused of callousness.

There seems to be an assumption that because America is rich, the money they have earned belongs to anyone who might want or need it. How about this for an idea: Those countries that can barely feed themselves might like to address their religious and political systems so that they can stand on their own two feet.

Many countries, including my own, free-load off the security provided by the USA. If America weren't there to address regional security threats, we in NZ might have to have a credible army of our own. Good on the Australians and Brits for helping to free Iraq from despotism. Shame on NZ and continental Europe.

Easy. There's no connection between the defense budget and the aid budget. The two are unrelated. Would you refuse to fit locks to your doors until you'd checked that every family on your block was getting enought to eat?

The American government has the right and the obligation to maintain a large military force to defend the nation. If that capacity can sometimes be used to help the citizens of other countries, all the better. It's not INSTEAD of aid, it's AS WELL AS aid. Perhaps it's even a form of aid. If I were a citizen of Iraq, I'd certainly think so (assuming I weren't a member of the deposed regime).

Still, if you insist that they are related, let me tell you this: If I had to choose between being the victim of a natural disaster and having to fend for myself, or being the victim of a vicious totalitarian dictatorship, I would choose the former without hesitation. If I had to choose for my loved ones between being drowned or being tortured to death in a concrete cell, it would be the former. Disaster victims can either struggle to help themselves, or accept help from other parts of their country or the world. Saddam's victims could do none of those things.

Another thing I hear all the time that bugs the hell out of me is the saying, "You can't impose democracy". Really? Tell it to the Germans and the Japanese. It's hard to imagine two cultures as different as 1940s America and Japan. Despite having almost all their industry destroyed in WWII, Germany and Japan are now among the richest and most successful countries in the world. Is America stingy? Ask anyone who benefitted from the Marshall plan.

It irritates me intensely that the US is blamed for every problem in every part of the world. The world went through an era of colonialism. Every major European power was involved in that. They all have blood on their hands, but now they love to tut-tut about America's "arrogance".

The Germans I'll give a bit of leeway to, because they've become peacenik in the extreme since the events of the early 20th Century. The despicable French have no excuse.

I don't remember the French crying out in 1944, "No! Please don't invade to liberate us! Innocent people may be hurt in the process." Another thing I don't remember is any rallies or protest marches in France when French government agents sank the Rainbow Warrior (a peaceful protest ship) in Auckland harbour and killed a crew member in the process. Actually, the people who did it were spirited back to France and given military honours. French people shrugged and said, "Well, that's national security."

But when there's a chance to stick it to the US, watch the protest crowds swell and demand that Saddam and Uday be allowed to continue raping and murdering and gassing their people.

As for the oil in Iraq, I don't know and don't care whether that was a consideration. Had I been living under constant threat of arrest and torture in Iraq I would have signed over my "share" of the oil reserves to any country willing to come and rescue me. A small price to pay, I would have thought.

Too bad the people in North Korea still have to eat the bark off trees and wait at night for the knock on the door.

How does America help the world?

First by being a refuge for many persecuted people from all over. Next by being the driving engine behind the global economy - almost every useful tool in my house, including the computer on which I'm typing this, was either invented or developed in America, or at the very least made viable and affordable by purchasing power of the huge American market.

Next, by direct investment and involvement in many other countries. Even when they're "sweatshops" (by some people's judgements), the alternative is usually begging or starvation.

Lastly, by being an example to the world.

I think that instead of whining about what meanies the Americans are, the poorer parts of the world need to get their acts together and develop free enterprise and capitalism, instead of scorning it while proffering the begging bowl.

Anyway, that's my view.


John.