Country-bashing

[AFPheonix]

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

Yes, Congress did ok the invasion, however, they along with the rest of us were given bad intelligence and kind of strong-armed into doing it. Can you imagine what the uproar would have been if they'd said no at that point? Seriously, this was the era of Freedom Fries. People, the media and government were all insane.

[Greenday]

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

[protege]

As for 'We're not your enemy' - well, the US government sure acted like anyone who didn't get into Iraq with them after 9/11 was an enemy. Your government seriously pissed off a lot of residents of friendly nations. And not all of our citizens are intelligent and fair-minded enough to separate 'government' from 'people'.

Even nations who did go and help got aggressive and unfriendly behaviour from your government. We typically kept our mouths shut at the time because hey, you'd just received a severe shock, we understood. But some of your people still act like we never did - or do - anything to help! Newsflash: not true!

...and as an American, I appreciate it. But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then. Not only were all those people killed, but we lost our sense of security (remember the anthrax scares?), our economy was wrecked, most of our major airlines filed for bankruptcy, started 2 wars...

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

While we're at it, no country is immune from this sort of thing. Plenty have skeletons in the closets

[Boozy]

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.

I agree. It should be about doing the right thing, not doing the profitable thing.

[AFPheonix]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.
Not that personal gain isn't all bad, and it should be a consideration in many interactions we have, but we also have to keep the other party's interest in mind, too. We also have to keep in mind that other cultures don't have the same morals we do. I suppose a better phrase than "moral" should be "upholding of international law".
But.....that won't happen until this admin is gone, seeing as they have a small problem with obeying international law themselves.

[DarthRetard]

Why are we still talking about morals? *snip*
In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

Sometimes, and more often than not, morals matter to some Americans, and I maintain that for us to be moral and stick to the morals and beliefs our country was founded upon, interventionism is not always necessary nor is it always practical.

Blame that Rwanda incident SOLELY on the UNITED NATIONS. You can find the transcript of a Tutsi informant begging Kofi Annan for help, claiming knowledge of the weapons caches, coordinates everything. Kofi Annan refused to do anything. He since mentioned in a Newsweek article/interview that he regrets it, but do not pin that one on the US, as we had just gotten sour from the Somalian Black Hawk Down incident.

I never said that interventionism was ever solely altruistic, but it's completely unfair to say that interventionism doesn't have it's morality to it, in some cases. For instance, if a government is trying to acquire more oil through interventionism, is it not following a moral and ethical guideline by providing certain means for it's people? I do believe a government's obligation is to provide for the welfare and safety of it's people, along with trying to provide a decent quality of living. Is that not moral?

[Boozy]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

[DexX]

Sure, some countries are helping. I applaud them. But if America didn't get involved first, would any of the other countries have stepped in at all? Sometimes, I really doubt it.

You mean like Australia and New Zealand going into East Timor and thoroughly pissing off our closest and most powerful neighbour (Indonesia) by helping the East Timorese achieve independence? The Indonesians still haven't forgiven us for that, as we knew they wouldn't, but it was the right and moral thing to do, so we did it.

(Of course, we were guilt-tripped into it by New Zealand, and the pigheaded government of the time was guilt-tripped into it by the party in oppostition, but hey, we got there in the end.)

Plenty of countries intervene in others to help make their lives better, not just the US. Please do a bit of research before making claims to the contrary.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me.

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

I know, I come back after a loverly 10 hour shift, and see that the person quoting me for rebuttal is well....restating what I already said?
Alrighty then.

I have to say, Ron Paul supporters give Obama supporters a run for their money as far as religious fervor goes. Darth hasn't gone all bullet point presentation like most of the rest do. Yet.

I think America gets plenty of credit for the stuff we do. However, we shouldn't be doing stuff just to earn praise, we should do things because it makes the world a better place ultimately. Yeah, it's nice and all now and again to be appreciated, but after the last few decades we've spent crapping all over quite a few key places, we shouldn't really be surprised that there's going to be some blowback. That's how it is when we deal with other sovereign nations with their own voices. They aren't going to be yes-men, nor should we expect them to be. Keeps us honest.

[Greenday]

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

This whole thread was based on friendly country bashing. I can't help it that you guys went off on a tangent and actually started bashing each other's countries. I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks. I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth. You want me to take country bashing seriously? Fine.

I'm still siding with Darth. America may not be doing the best things when dealing with world affairs, but at least America tries to make the world a better place. There are a lot of countries sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Sure, some countries are helping. I applaud them. But if America didn't get involved first, would any of the other countries have stepped in at all? Sometimes, I really doubt it.

America has its fair share of morons. When Canada or GB ups their populations to the size of the US (well, GB won't, it's just too small to support that many people), they'll have just as many stupid people too. The US just has a population that is MUCH larger and as such, there is more stupidity to be seen.

[DarthRetard]

Seshat, even now, with some of the statements in your reply, you're treating me with an attitude that says to me that I'm still being looked down upon because I'm american. No, I will not give the French the same moral standing, and here's why:

It's quite known that they were selling weapons to Iraq, and had monetary influences in Iraq. France's government under Chirac was more two-timing than Cruella DeVille in a poker game. "Sure USA, we're really upset about your loss and everything, and wanna do everything to help, but....uhh.....Hey look over there!"

Before you start on it, I know for a fact that America has done some shady bullshit in the past. I know it, and I hate it. I hate the fact that Reagan, one of the president's I'm most fond of, is responsible for Bin Laden's rise to power. So here I am, acknowledging it, and trying to undo what my country has screwed up. I know we're dumbasses sometimes. I know. I admit it. I'm no supporter of the current administration policies, either.

However, I think that the impression a lot of citizens in other nations get from us, is from our media (not just news, but tv as well) and based on that, I could understand how they think we're idiots. I mean come on, we let Paris Hilton produce an album? Credibility: 0. I formally apologize for that too.

America needs to be given a little more credit than it gets though, because to be fucking honest, we've been thrown into a major role from the beginning of this country's history. The American Revolution led to revolutions in Haiti, France, and set an example that would be used for years to come. We didn't ask for this role, and we're doing the best we can with it. If another country thinks they can do it better, then they can either take some of the burden, and help us out, or they can sit back with their thumbs up their arses and wonder what the hell we're doing.

[Seshat]

Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

Thank you for the clarification. What I read in those earlier posts was not what your clarification says.

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones

What do you expect from an organisation that is essentially a democracy?

and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont.

That's the curse of being moral and ethical.

The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying.

As I understand it, France at the time was saying 'it's a mistake' and choosing to act according to their morals and ethics. That's one time when they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did, they would be doing something they believed would be wrong. If they didn't, the only remaining world superpower would be pissed off at them. And they couldn't be sure their intelligence was right, any more than the US could.

If you want credit for your own moral stands - and yes, I do give your country credit for them - then give France credit for their moral stand in the 9/11 aftermath. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

Yes, I think that's probably about right. It matches with my assessment.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world.

Read that sentence, think about it, decide whether it's true or not, and then think about what sorts of mistakes you might be making because of it. And how you would feel, if your neighbour acted towards you as if he was moral, and you were not.

[Boozy]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement...

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me.

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

[DexX]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement...

As for the UN, well, what can it do? Every time it tries to do the right thing, one member country will veto it (and that member country has often been the USA), giving it no power. But then, if we gave the UN an army, some real teeth to enforce its decisions, then suddenly we'd have this terrifying central world government that would probably only last a few years before Geneva copped a nuke.

The UN can only work based on willing cooperation. Saying "Make me!" is not willing cooperation.

[DarthRetard]

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.

First off, there are plenty of stable economies out there that aren't dependant on a militaristic interventionist policy. How much do you actually know about Ron Paul? I don't simply campaing for him, I, in all honesty, am one of the higher ups in the campaign, and I've met the man on several occasions now. Clinton managed minimal interventionism, with some still going on, and still managed to balance our budget and make our economy stronger. However, he fucked us by reducing our military's strength by 30%. It's not that I don't fully believe in some interventionism, and neither does Ron Paul, he just doesn't think every country's problem requires our "assistance". Iraq took a step backwards after we intervened. Vietnam is just now finally getting it's legs underneath it. Interventionism requires a military obligation that we can't fulfill at our current strength right now. Spending MORE money to accomplish a task that should never have been set out will only damage our economy further by decreasing citizen's confidence in government. The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world. We need to save face and gain the confidence of our allies again. We need to withdraw from NATO, for it simply is now just a military alliance on paper that could, in the future draw us into a war. Jefferson once said, in his inaugural address "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

It's treaties like the Rio Treaty, NATO, NAFTA and the WTO that will bring our nation down, because we've put the fate of our nation's economy and safety in the hands of people who we dont necessarily know share the same desire for us to succeed.