Ok it seems we are in agreement that US actions in ww2 was beneficial and I take it you welcome those. You asked me where US intervention was of benefit. You NEVER said that meant US and US alone. Franky, I don't see the difference. There is not much that the US nor any country does strictly alone when it comes to outside intervention. There is no one-way thinking or biased view of the world on my part. History and current events can speak for themselves. It is you with the slanted views and straw man arguments.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I LOVE taxes!!!
- Thread starter granville
- Start date
Ok it seems we are in agreement that US actions in ww2 was beneficial and I take it you welcome those. You asked me where US intervention was of benefit. You NEVER said that meant US and US alone. Franky, I don't see the difference. There is not much that the US nor any country does strictly alone when it comes to outside intervention. There is no one-way thinking or biased view of the world on my part. History and current events can speak for themselves. It is you with the slanted views and straw man arguments.
Quote from Hamlet:
Ok it seems we are in agreement that US actions in ww2 was beneficial and I take it you welcome those. You asked me where US intervention was of benefit. You NEVER said that meant US and US alone. Franky, I don't see the difference. There is not much that the US nor any country does strictly alone when it comes to outside intervention. There is no one-way thinking or biased view of the world on my part. History and current events can speak for themselves. It is you with the slanted views and straw man arguments.
...and still waiting for your list...
But I think my list is evocative enough. Let me repeat it :
Panama ? Haiti ? Korea ? Kosovo ? Iraq ? Vietnam ? Chili ? Uruguay ? El Salvador ? Nicaragua ? Granada ? Guatemala ?
Quote from science_trader:
...and still waiting for your list...
But I think my list is evocative enough. Let me repeat it :
Panama ? Haiti ? Korea ? Kosovo ? Iraq ? Vietnam ? Chili ? Uruguay ? El Salvador ? Nicaragua ? Granada ? Guatemala ?
You will have to make up your mind at some point what it is that you are trying to argue. You continually asked for examples of beneficial US intervention and I continually gave them to you. Do you want to say that US intervention has never been beneficial, or that there are times when it is not? Clarify this and stop making straw man arguments. You are adding nothing here.
Quote from Hamlet:
You will have to make up your mind at some point what it is that you are trying to argue. You continually asked for examples of beneficial US intervention and I continually gave them to you. Do you want to say that US intervention has never been beneficial, or that there are times when it is not? Clarify this and stop making straw man arguments. You are adding nothing here.
Please requote your list of US self-interventionism that brought democracy, as out of 41300 members on ET, 41299 are unable to find it from your posts. Perhaps is there a huge bug that hides this list from other readers than just you...
Or, and it could be simpler, just acknowledge that all of these self-interventions have been huge failures and just served the unilateral interests (especially economical interests) of the US.
Quote from science_trader:
Please requote your list of US self-interventionism that brought democracy, as out of 41300 members on ET, 41299 are unable to find it from your posts. Perhaps is there a huge bug that hides this list from other readers than just you...
Or, and it could be simpler, just acknowledge that all of these self-interventions have been huge failures and just served the unilateral interests (especially economical interests) of the US.
It's amusing that you are now speaking for all ET members. Anyhow, you keep talking about a list. I never made a "list" per se, nor did I ever say that I made a "list" (If you think that I did, please point it out so that I can correct your misreading). There is no bug on ET. The bug is that you only see what you want to see and ignore what you don't. Perhaps indicative of a biased point of view? Regardless, please read more carefully.
I did give you examples where US intervention was beneficial to countries other than the US (see posts regarding ww2, the cold war and Korea), yet you continually ignore those and keep asking ad nauseam for some list and using that fact that I have not furnished you with a list as an argument that US intervention was never good. The examples, history, and current events speak for themselves (current events are whispering in your ear right now, are you listening?).
You are wrong to say that all US interventions have been huge failures, and this is the statement that you keep making that I have been refuting all along. Also, if you want to rephrase your assertion that is one thing, but please don't change the semantics and use that as a disproof to the response that I make to your original statements.
In the end you gave me an answer. 3 pages to reach that objective, well that was quite long...
For everyone, here is Hamlet's list of countries where US own interventionism has brought democracy to one or more countries :
- Occidental european countries during WW2
- Some countries whose names are still unknown thanks to cold war
- Korea
For everyone, here is Hamlet's list of countries where US own interventionism has brought democracy to one or more countries :
- Occidental european countries during WW2
- Some countries whose names are still unknown thanks to cold war
- Korea
Quote from science_trader:
In the end you gave me an answer. 3 pages to reach that objective, well that was quite long...
For everyone, here is Hamlet's list of countries where US own interventionism has brought democracy to one or more countries :
- Occidental european countries during WW2
- Some countries whose names are still unknown thanks to cold war
- Korea
I think your response quite amusing and actually got a chuckle out of it. "For everyone..."? For who is this?? Don't let the illusion of having an audience and the consequential pride and ego blind you from truths that I am citing. I am responding directly to you (as best as I can since you ask a question and then when I provide an answer you change it around over and over). Now I see that you are toying with a totally new question, as written above - "US own interventionism has brought democracy to one or more countries "
Am I take it then that you agree now with my response to your original question of "which countries have benefited by US intervention? Can you respond to this before creating a new straw man argument, or will you duck and dodge yet again?
Will you also concede that you are now posing a new and very different question, to which my response will come after I know the specific meaning of your words (just so that we don't have to play these semantic games yet again). What is your meaning of intervention and what is your meaning of "own". Note that if your meaning of "own" is US entirely alone without any foreign aid or support whatsoever that would leave very little to discuss.
Quote from jrlvnv:
I think u guys are looking at this whole issue wrong. Who cares what happened in the past. Its done. Whether it was right or wrong we can do nothing about it. Questions and debates should be about what should we do today and tomorrow.
That's a valid point, but consider also how history can play an important roll in decision making and can be a good teacher and guide. We are all taught not to make the same mistake twice and to learn from the consequences of our actions. Of course it should be adapted for and put into the context of the present. It sounds similar to trading doesn't it?
The reason that you see this long discussion though is because a statement was made which I recognized as untrue, and felt compelled to address this falsehood.