America leave the world in peace!

I get your point. But mine is HOW do we help?

Can't we help without destroying our own safety and welfare?

0 Replies

Well, we had sanctions which weren't helping. We may or may not have frozen Saddam's acounts.

Look.

When you go to the doctor with a problem. You don't tell him the best soultion. He tells you your options and you pick the one that's best for you. I am not a military mastermind. I am not a conflict resolutionista. I am a person with a fair amount of common sense and a deep desire to see the people of the world live in a more harmonious state.

The people who run this country are supposed to be the brilliant minds (ha!). They are supposed to come up with options for the best cure for ails us (or in this case, not us but them). We, the people, should be able to have a say in those options through our elected representatives. Right? Did all that happen? i don't think so.

The leaders of our country are getting the big bucks. They have the responsiblity of reviewing solutions and deciding on the best one. The way the Iraq situation was attacked was not satisfactory. We know that now BUT WE ALSO KNEW THAT THEN. I know we did. I DID. And, like I said, I'm not a brilliant mastermind. We predicted this mess.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

The people who run this country are supposed to be the brilliant minds (ha!).

That made me laugh. God help us all if these are the smartest people we can get, huh?

0 Replies

Seriously. THe scary thing is that Cheney IS smart. Scary and smart.

0 Replies

I've always thought that anyone who wants to be president must be crazy (really, would you want that job?) or has devious motives or is crazy with devious motives. I don't care what party you vote for- you are getting someone who is not normal.

0 Replies

Greenwitch has a good point

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

The way the Iraq situation was attacked was not satisfactory. We know that now BUT WE ALSO KNEW THAT THEN. I know we did. I DID. And, like I said, I'm not a brilliant mastermind. We predicted this mess.

That's the core issue.

If Iraq would be a situation where a humanitarian intervention, in a desperate situation, had turned out the way Iraq has turned out, and resulted in civil war, then the argument that the initial goal was only to help would be right.

But that was not the intention. The words "humanitarian intervention" never came over the lips of any Bush admin official.

The rhetoric was focused on the "War on Terror", on a "pre-emptive strike" and the unmentionable WMDs.

Every concern that piss-poor planning and a rush to war would result in a situation that would leave the Iraqi population worse off than under Saddam were completely ignored. The general mantra was that "yes, war is hard and people die, but they will be rid of Saddam." This not only ignores the fact that the US (and many western nations) supported Saddam when he was terrorizing his neighbours as well as the Iraqis (another factoid that belies the notion of a humanitarian intervention), it also underestimates the impact right-out war has on the population on the one hand and the well-known scenarios that predicted a catastrophic situation in a post-war Iraq, given the pathetic planning that was done (read: none at all, or "the war will pay for itself once the oil start flowing") on the other hand.

I don't know what would have been the right thing to do in 2003. I really don't know.

But what annoys me is when people argue that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was to help the Iraqi people, and that poor America gets called a bully when she wanted to do was help.

0 Replies

Never said it was the only reason.

But it's the reason we should have.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

Never said it was the only reason.

But it's the reason we should have.

It's the reason the international community should have intervened, instead of selling weapons to the regime.

It's the reason the international community should have intervened in Darfur. Or in Ruanda, or Sri Lanka, or Turkmenistan, for that matter.

The problem seems to be that many wars that have in no way the character of a humanitarian intervention seem to be sold as missions "to help the people", and many humanitarian interventions that should take place never happen, because it's in nobody's interest to help the people.

Sad.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:
So, we should just let the murderers get away with slaughtering kids because it's contained within their country?

And while we may have made a boo boo (a huge, unforgivable boo boo) we took Saddam out, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocents he would have murdered. I don't see the US blowing up schools and markets. I see the US trying to stop crazy wingnuts from doing it...at the expense of our lives. The men and women of the armed services weren't forced to join. Many joined after the war began and they did it because there is some purpose to trying to save the lives of people who are cornered and have no options other than live in fear.

I am not saying the US is blameless or that what we do is always right.

But we are damned if we don't and damned if we do.

If we didn't help, people like you would be screaming about the injustice of the US not helping.

Yes that's exactly right. Although strong arm dictators and societies that abuse their citizens are abhorrent, they are not OUR coun try and we have people here who need help, services and protection. Notice we don't get involved anywhere unless by going there we can serve our own interests. We cannot stop the mistreatment of people in other countries who hold human life in different regard than we do by diplomacy or by gun.

I have empathy for these people but I am an American and that means America first.

Jesus himself said in his gospels that the poor would always be with us.
Someone else said Charity begins at home.

So,allowing the holocaust to continue,as long as it was contained in Germany,would have been perfectly fine with you?
Somehow,I seriously doubt if you believe that.

But,I do agree with isolationism.
If the world doesnt want us to play in their sandbox,lets not.
Lets close ALL foreign embassies in the US and deport all the diplomats.
Lets close ALL US embassies overseas and bring those diplomats home.
Lets bring EVERY US citizen,no matter where they are in the world,home.
Lets close the CDC to foreign doctors,lets end all humanitarian aid,of all kinds.
Lets bring home all US military forces,from whereever they are and from whatever they are doing.
Lets stop all exports of food,medicine,or any other product we have in the US.

Lets just tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
We dont need them,but they sure as hell need us.

But,if they dont want us to be involved at all,lets give them what they want.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Lets close ALL foreign embassies in the US and deport all the diplomats.
Lets close ALL US embassies overseas and bring those diplomats home.
Lets bring EVERY US citizen,no matter where they are in the world,home.
Lets close the CDC to foreign doctors,lets end all humanitarian aid,of all kinds.
Lets bring home all US military forces,from whereever they are and from whatever they are doing.
Lets stop all exports of food,medicine,or any other product we have in the US.

Lets just tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
We dont need them,but they sure as hell need us.

But,if they dont want us to be involved at all,lets give them what they want.

Appealing to extremes again, aren't we, mysteryman?

Nevertheless, it sounds like a splendid plan. No more imports from China. No oil from the Middle East, or Venezuela. No more agricultural imports from Central or South America.

Yes. That should work fine for the American economy.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

I get your point. But mine is HOW do we help?

Can't we help without destroying our own safety and welfare?

please note what I said about humanitarian aid. We could flood the world with it a helluva lot cheaper than the cost of miltary operations AND we could improve this country tremendously.

I certainly don't disagree that this is a great country but we could be better and I fear that under our present leadership we are not so great anymore.

And don't confuse strong with great.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Lets close ALL foreign embassies in the US and deport all the diplomats.
Lets close ALL US embassies overseas and bring those diplomats home.
Lets bring EVERY US citizen,no matter where they are in the world,home.
Lets close the CDC to foreign doctors,lets end all humanitarian aid,of all kinds.
Lets bring home all US military forces,from whereever they are and from whatever they are doing.
Lets stop all exports of food,medicine,or any other product we have in the US.

Lets just tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
We dont need them,but they sure as hell need us.

But,if they dont want us to be involved at all,lets give them what they want.

Appealing to extremes again, aren't we, mysteryman?

Nevertheless, it sounds like a splendid plan. No more imports from China. No oil from the Middle East, or Venezuela. No more agricultural imports from Central or South America.

Yes. That should work fine for the American economy.

How is it extreme?
Name one thing,except oil,that the US imports,that cant be made or grown or produced here.
As for oil,we would have to find alternative sources of energy,and that would end our reliance on foreign sources.
Again,thats a win for the US.
For several years the EU has been grumblng about having more power and say in the world,I say lets give them what they want.

Lets us withdraw behind our own borders and let the world struggle along without us.

Darfur? Its in Africa,solve it yourself.

We just wont interfere at all unless our borders are threatened.
That way,the whole rest of the world will be happy,and isnt that the point.

0 Replies

outside of the fact that I believe with all the expenses we would lose in MM's scenario we could afford easily to offer humanitarian aid, I am in agreement with him. Holy ****!!!!

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How is it extreme?

It's extreme in the way a little kid's behaviour would be extreme when it, after being told not to through sand at the other little kids, would say "Then I'm not going to play in a sandbox ever again! In my whole life!"

The difference is, that this kind of behaviour is okay with little kids. It's a little weird when grown-ups like you do it.

mysteryman wrote:

Name one thing,except oil,that the US imports,that cant be made or grown or produced here.
As for oil,we would have to find alternative sources of energy,and that would end our reliance on foreign sources.
Again,thats a win for the US.

Certainly. Many nations have dreamt of independence from the rest of the world. The USSR has. Hitler (excuse the Godwin) has. Kim Yong Il still does.

America could probably pull it off, actually. But the short term consequences to the economy would be devastating. The US is the world's second biggest export nation (the first one is Germany. the third one is China.) - all of that would break away. So would the jobs. Millions of people would be unemployed.

But I don't really have to tell you all of this, because you really know. You're just playing games.

mysteryman wrote:

For several years the EU has been grumblng about having more power and say in the world,I say lets give them what they want.

The EU seems to be pretty occupied with helping the new member countries to raise their standard of living, with drafting a constitution, with comprehensive strategies for future enlargement, foreign and interior policy, etc. etc.

Sure, people are grumbling that the US is playing world police, but the fact that people have noticed that America doesn't want to give up the number one rank at the top of the food chain is not something unique to the EU. India has noticed. China has, too. Uh, basically, the rest of the world has noticed.

However, I would submit that much of the discontent doesn't stem from America's leading[/] role in the world, but rather from America's role as the world's school yard bully.

[quote="mysteryman"]Lets us withdraw behind our own borders and let the world struggle along without us.[/quote]

Certainly. Go ahead.

[quote="mysteryman"]Darfur? Its in Africa,solve it yourself.[/quote]

Wait. You're not saying that would be a change from the current policy, are you?

[quote="mysteryman"]We just wont interfere at all unless our borders are threatened.
That way,the whole rest of the world will be happy,and isnt that the point.[/quote]

Fine with me.

1 Reply

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

outside of the fact that I believe with all the expenses we would lose in MM's scenario we could afford easily to offer humanitarian aid, I am in agreement with him. Holy ****!!!!

I will go even farther and say that as long as it was for the purposes of defending our own borders and citizens I would go along with compulsory military training for all citizens so that we would have a trained and combat ready nation should we need it TO DEFEND OUR OWN BORDERS!!!!! Also I would even agree with a buildup of the best weapons systems available anywhere that could wipe out every major city on the planet with a push of a button because WE COULD ACCOMPLISH ALL THIS AND STILL BE UNTOLD MONEY AHEAD TO educate, provide healthcare and housing, homeland security and superior infrastructure for every citizen of this country.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,allowing the holocaust to continue,as long as it was contained in Germany,would have been perfectly fine with you?
Somehow,I seriously doubt if you believe that.

But,I do agree with isolationism.
If the world doesnt want us to play in their sandbox,lets not.
Lets close ALL foreign embassies in the US and deport all the diplomats.
Lets close ALL US embassies overseas and bring those diplomats home.
Lets bring EVERY US citizen,no matter where they are in the world,home.
Lets close the CDC to foreign doctors,lets end all humanitarian aid,of all kinds.
Lets bring home all US military forces,from whereever they are and from whatever they are doing.
Lets stop all exports of food,medicine,or any other product we have in the US.

Lets just tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
We dont need them,but they sure as hell need us.
But,if they dont want us to be involved at all,lets give them what they want.

What did the US care about the holocaust, the American people wanted nothing to do with fighting the Third Reich, they called it the European war, it was only when Adolph Hitler declared war on the US at the end of 1941 that they were dragged into the fight, the rest of the free world had been fighting for three years before that; have a look at your history, the US got very rich on the back of the Second World War.

The problem with Americans is they believe their own fiction, they really believe the world revolves around the US; the truth is, many in the world would applaud the demise of the US if only because of their arrogance.
As for isolationism, that's never going to happen, the US would never raise the drawbridge, they could not exist without the rest of the world, the country needs revenue to wage war and besides, the paranoia that surges through US government wouldn't allow the country to be isolated, they're afraid to act alone.

The US has never done a thing that is not for the benefit of the US, it's a self serving nation that cares little for the rest of the world; they need to wake up and try to become part of the family of nations, remember "Together we stand, apart we fall," America is not an Island.
It's not all about Iraq; it is about a self serving society and a neo-conservative element that was part of the Bush regime, a cabal of war mongers, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle and the rest of the decision makers who wanted to rule the world.

An interesting bit of trivia, there are 6.5 million Jews in Israel and 6 million in the US and you think you control your country? The US government talks of spreading democracy in the Middle East and at the same time usurps democracy at home by spying on fellow Americans and introducing an invasive "Patriot Act."
Before trying to spread democracy the US government needs to understand what the democratic principal is all about, they need to understand that democracy comes from within and cannot be spread at the point of a gun.

0 Replies

Congratulations, anton. You managed to compose a post about America, mentioning both Adolf Hitler and Jewish control over the USA.

(Btw, "Adolf" is spelt with an "f", not with "ph").

0 Replies

Quote:

Bella Dea

So, we should just let the murderers get away with slaughtering kids because it's contained within their country?

And while we may have made a boo boo (a huge, unforgivable boo boo) we took Saddam out, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocents he would have murdered

The result of the US/UK blockade of Iraq between the two wars according to the UN is estimated at 500,000 Children (other sources, between 400,000 - 800,000), with a total death toll estimated at 1,000,000. Since the war started, and about 5 months ago, some estimates for the civilian death toll stood at 800,000 people (this is NOT the blockade toll - it is on top of the blockade toll). The total of US' 'kindness' has lead to somewhere between 1,000,000 to 1,800,000 Iraqi deaths. Further deaths will be expected for generations to come, not just from the severely detiorated security situation, but also from hundreds of thousands of rounds of radioactive depleted Uranium fired in Iraq. So the US using Saddam's undoubted brutallity towards the Iraqi people as justification for war is completely hypocritical.

Quote:

I can't remember that the US has ever been widely called a bully for helping. For example, the image of the US in the wake of the tsunami catastrophe in Asia improved significantly after America was quick to bring help and relief to the affected areas.

A much better example of US generosity, though if I remember right, the initial offer was $30m, until well after other countries offered significantly more (Australia offered $1 Billion as soon as the situation became clear...although Australia does have a strategic interest in doing so)

As an aside, the vast majority of US foreign Aid ($3B) goes as military aid to Israel.

In regards to leaving the world in Peace. I'm of the opinion that the American government doesn't believe it can do that - for economic reasons. It needs to protect and expand it's business interests, it's oil supply, and likely also to prevent third world governments from ignoring their loans - but that last is personal opinion (Western World loans to third world countries currently stand at 3 Trillion)

In the event that the US did leave the world 'in peace', much of the world would still find a way to have wars.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,allowing the holocaust to continue,as long as it was contained in Germany,would have been perfectly fine with you?
Somehow,I seriously doubt if you believe that.

But,I do agree with isolationism.
If the world doesnt want us to play in their sandbox,lets not.
Lets close ALL foreign embassies in the US and deport all the diplomats.
Lets close ALL US embassies overseas and bring those diplomats home.
Lets bring EVERY US citizen,no matter where they are in the world,home.
Lets close the CDC to foreign doctors,lets end all humanitarian aid,of all kinds.
Lets bring home all US military forces,from whereever they are and from whatever they are doing.
Lets stop all exports of food,medicine,or any other product we have in the US.

Lets just tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
We dont need them,but they sure as hell need us.

But,if they dont want us to be involved at all,lets give them what they want.

A childish response that surprises me not at all.

0 Replies

America leave the world in peace!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know