Who do you want to win the war?

Quote from alfonso:




Or even "HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USA and we'll STILL fuck your country up!"

:D


You know, as crazy as this might sound, given what I've said, I'd actually support your position -- I genuinely like America! -- IF if it was actually the case that all these other countries were "fucking with" America.

Unfortunately, history shows us that America "fucking with" other countries has been the rule, not the other way around.
More...

Catch 22. If the US is not involved, then most of the world says we aren't doing enough, and if we get involved then 1/2 the world (give or take) says we should stay out. No, the US has not been perfect (no country in history ever has been), and yes there are times we should've gotten involved when we didn't and visa-versa (even though there will always be some who will say the opposite in a given situation), but the US has done more to improve the world than any other country, and it has the best record in history as a superpower. There will ALWAYS be resentful and jealous people in this world, regardless of what a powerful nation does for good.
 
Quote from alfonso:




Yes Optional. That is my issue.

For this very good reason: can you imagine what kind of world it would be if every nation acted as America does?

It's something that probably doesn't occur to Americans, (who, as I said, take being the world's cop as their birthright) but I can assure you that the rest of the world sees what is happening and thinks "Just who the fuck do these people think they are?"
More...

Actually, it is because America is so large and powerful that it is often looked to for help. Indeed, the failure of the League of Nations was because no state would enforce international rules, and it was the less powerful countries that supported a larger role for the US (and other superpowers of the time) in order to give some power to international law. By the way, when was the last time the US fought a nation that abided by the Geneva Convention?
 
Quote from MondoTrader:

"can you imagine what kind of world it would be if every nation acted as America does? "

If every country acted as america does there would be no need for warfare of any kind ! We are attacking Iraq because the regime there is a natural enemy. If everyone were like us, who would we hit ? Nobody. If every country in the world was a democracy, that would be the end of open warfare. Never in modern history has there been war between democracies. Trade wars maybe, but nobody dies. Our primary enemy is dictatorship in whatever form it takes.

Think about it, have we attacked France ? No. We don't attack democracies, even if they disagree with us and have a different culture.
More...

I good point that I was about to add. If other countries were like the US, they would be democracies, and it has almost never happened that two democracies have fought, because when a people have the information and the voice, the chances for serious conflict are very substantially diminished!
 
Quote from alfonso:



But God help you if you're not a democracy then, right?

Because not everyone (the clear majority of the world, in fact) is not like us, we must therefore do everything in our power to make them like us. Right?

We might break a few eggs but we're gonna make that omellete. Correct?

Thank you mondo, your words perfectly encapsulat America's vision for the world.

Not that every country being like America would necessarily be that bad of a world, but can you force it down their throats -- by any means necessary? You, for one, obviously think so.

I would disagree.
More...

Obviously you haven't studied int'l realtions. It is actually liberals (including European liberals) who stress this point about democracies, not the realists. And the reason most of these wars have occurred is not because the democracies are attacking the dictatorships/one party regimes simply to make them democracies (look at history for crying out loud), it is because not being autocratic leads to these states doing provacative and evil things. This was pretty clear, yet you read it completely the wrong way.
 
Quote from alfonso:



I'm afraid I do mind you asking where I live.

But I'll tell you that my nationality is Argentine.
More...

Oh, the guys who resent us due to THEIR country's reckless economic policies. No wonder a ton of nazis and, more recently, islamic fundamentalists chose that nation, more than any other in L. America, to settle in.
 
Quote from canyonman00:



I would beg to differ with you. And sometime, the price of freedom is death. This country was started with an act of defiance. An oppression that was no longer accepted became the motivation and the battle was on. Many lost their lives in the founding of this country. Now this is where I have a problem with the detractors. Where was Russia, Germany and the Arab countries at the time? They were in existence and very capable of waging a vote. Why did they not explain to the Queen and her masses that her posture was wrong? It continues...

As an African American, I look to this country and I find much to be happy and thankful for. But I also ask where was France, Russia, Germany and the Arab countries as slavery grew and took hold? None of my history books speak to the many letters and troops that joined in the battle of the north and south to help either side. They decided to let the country work this out for itself you say? Well what about all the dead and beaten down slaves? Oh, collateral damage, I see. I guess in some strange equasion somewhere, they don't count.

And I will be the first to admit, there were slaves who frowned on the war. They openly said that leaving the comforts of the master was not a pleasing thought or a desired option. So what do I think? I am happy that so many White folks thought enough to give their lives to make things different. A slave uprising would have not done a damn thing other than cause a lot of slaves to be dead. And since they had no rights and were chattel, it would have been legal to kill them. Intervention by any other country WOULD have been illegal. To hell with human rights huh? You don't want to piss off a trading partner you know?

And even today, many things are not as right as they COULD be on the local and international human rights scene. Yet I do not hear Russia, Germany, or the Arab countries making a case for any positive changes. Moreover I hear the sorry testament of, "These things, changes for the better, they take time." Meanwhile the distressed, suffering and disadvantaged wait for phantom "delivery from terror" assistance.

It also DOES mean that the world community needs to be more proactive against the oppressors. And while it must be within reason, war should not be left off the table of solutions. And in some instances, it needs to be a "High on the List" selection. While I do not welcome war, it sometimes is the necessary catalyst in the progress of A WORLD! :)
More...

Great point. With regard to a slave revolt becoming a massacre, the biggest criticism of John Brown, despite the respect many have for him, is that he led large numbers of slaves to their death through an unwinnable revolt.

The funny thing is that many of these countries have been nowhere to be seen during many major abuses recently. Europe did nothing about Yugoslavia (right in their own back yard), are doing nothing now about Colombia, they offered little help with Somalia, and France actually built Iraq's nuclear plant in the 80s and forged economic ties (such as oil) with Iraq (as did Russia and China) years ago despite Iraq's total non-compliance and the UN embargo. These states are the ones who have the financial incentives to avoid a regime change (the US is losing and WILL lose a great deal of money from this conflict).

No doubt, canyonman is right that the biggest problem is with too much INACTION (the ordeal in Somalia led the US to be reluctant to help out in such areas as Rwanda, but Europe, Asia etc have never even tried to help). Inaction is what led to the failure of the League of Nations, and eventually the world will either take a stand against fundamentalism and brutal regimes or there will become a permanent bifurcated system between the free nations and brutal regimes, whose power and inevitable provocations, coupled with modern weapons, will make it impossible for them to be overthrown and will increase the likelihood of WW III. For those who think this is an exaggeration, note that fundamentalists like the Taliban and the fundamentalists in Iran must do what they can to fight off modernity and oppose free nations so that there people don't learn or have the chance to yearn for the same freedoms (although the people in Iran already know and want these freedoms). This is why the Taliban were, and Iran now is, the biggest state sponsors of terrorism!
 
Quote from Madison:



without a rigorous system of due process, there is no guilt or innocence. without a dependable, predictable, and unbiased system for dispute resolution and punishment, you have justice by whim, which is the same as no justice.
More...

It is true you must have solid, logical reasons for taking action. But international relations is not a domestic court of law, and there are times when actions must be taken without support of a world body. Int'l Relations inevitably involves politics (of a higher level than ever enter a domestic criminal court). If states wait only for numerous other nations (or a falulty world body) to investigate and determine that another state poses a danger every time, the state subject to danger might be destroyed in the process of waiting or, more importantly, might become the sacrifice of other nations who have self-serving agendas that don't lend themselves to the security and survival of said endangered state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top