BF2S Forums why does the US inforce inself into almost every situation?

dogpile1487 wrote:

shouldn't that be the job of the UN?  granted that nobody listens to the UN but still that's not the point.

Maybe that is the point... think about it...

Marconius wrote:

America believes it can bring peace to the world, and whether it can or not is quite debatable.  When you consider a 200 year old country attempting to force its own Imperial manifest destiny all over the world with complete disregard to the consequences of such actions, it tends to cause a lot more problems than not.

Funny how little ol' 200 year old America is the strongest nation huh?

Last edited by SiMSaM16 (2006-08-03 02:27:21)

You twats make me laugh every time you try to call America imperial. You sound like a retarded broken Alex Jones record. Now go look up imperial cuz you douchebag conspiracy theorists seem confused. America in its inception was anti-imperialist against England and as precursor to entering ww2 we had England and France agree to diminish their own imperialistic endeavors. While our soldiers fight and die for other peoples freedom and right to govern themselves democratically you back asswards "evil plot" douchebags call it imperial.

My view is that there should only be intervention in other sovereign nations when your home turf is actually under attack from another sovereign nation or when there is a crystal clear and present threat of imminent attack on your home turf (again not when intelligence is doctored/exaggerated to justify action on political/economic grounds). Military action should be the last restort and unilateralism in this global village should be deplored.

The fact is that different peoples and nations should fight their own battles. That's what gets on peoples nerves - a foreign power decreeing what they think is best for them. How can we westerners be so arrogant as to 'know' what is best for muslims (a completely alien culture to our own)? You have to let other nations grow and evolve naturally - not force your particular brand of westernism on them. It's degrading and patronising.

If the US aren't acting imperialisitically then why are they undermining the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Surely they should be glad to see democracy in action. But wait - a large chunk of US oil imports come from there - what a coincidence. Can you not see why Venezuelans might consider that unbelievably patronising - another nation deciding what is best for them and trying to make that happen (as was attempted in a coup with clandestine CIA support a few years back)? I think if China started talking about regime change in USA you'd begin to empathise.

PS Being born out of anti-imperialism does not preclude one from becoming imperialist. The US war of independence was a long time ago.

PPS I'm not suggesting that the US have never acted altruistically in the past. They have done many good things on the international stage.

PPPS The imperialism of which I speak is not imperialism in the traditional sense - it's economic imperialism built up through the installation of subservient governements (often non-democratic ones) and 'corporation invasion'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-03 03:06:48)

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

why does the US inforce inself into almost every situation?

1. Its spelled enforce, with an E
2. see below

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

word. do you really think Israel would listen to the UN?

put in somthing decent before comenting on grammerl, add to the conversation before deputizing yourself the grammer police. you obviously knew what he ment.
p.s. not directed at you cyborg.

Last edited by Nicholas Langdon (2006-08-03 03:01:48)

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

You twats make me laugh every time you try to call America imperial. You sound like a retarded broken Alex Jones record. Now go look up imperial cuz you douchebag conspiracy theorists seem confused. America in its inception was anti-imperialist against England and as precursor to entering ww2 we had England and France agree to diminish their own imperialistic endeavors. While our soldiers fight and die for other peoples freedom and right to govern themselves democratically you back asswards "evil plot" douchebags call it imperial.

and now you try to control the rest of the world, what do you call that.

SiMSaM16 wrote:

dogpile1487 wrote:

shouldn't that be the job of the UN?  granted that nobody listens to the UN but still that's not the point.

Maybe that is the point... think about it...

Marconius wrote:

America believes it can bring peace to the world, and whether it can or not is quite debatable.  When you consider a 200 year old country attempting to force its own Imperial manifest destiny all over the world with complete disregard to the consequences of such actions, it tends to cause a lot more problems than not.

Funny how little ol' 200 year old America is the strongest nation huh?

that only lasts for so long, its been proven again and again.

DonFck wrote:

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

You twats make me laugh every time you try to call America imperial. You sound like a retarded broken Alex Jones record. Now go look up imperial cuz you douchebag conspiracy theorists seem confused. America in its inception was anti-imperialist against England and as precursor to entering ww2 we had England and France agree to diminish their own imperialistic endeavors. While our soldiers fight and die for other peoples freedom and right to govern themselves democratically you back asswards "evil plot" douchebags call it imperial.

and now you try to control the rest of the world, what do you call that.

Periodical Global Dictatorship?

The Circle of Life

CameronPoe wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

and now you try to control the rest of the world, what do you call that.

Periodical Global Dictatorship?

The Circle of Life

i know, iknow, and someone else will control them in the future, its just funny how they act like it will be this way forever.

i was simply refering to american arrogance that they are that much more than everyone else just because they have military superiorty. i know what we discuss only can possibly apply to our short lifetime, but it seems that most of the pro american posters here seem to think that they are the first county to be more powerful than any other country.

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

i was simply refering to american arrogance that they are that much more than everyone else just because they have military superiorty. i know what we discuss only can possibly apply to our short lifetime, but it seems that most of the pro american posters here seem to think that they are the first county to be more powerful than any other country.

I agree.

Then your view is short sighted imo. Inaction leads to people like Mussolini Hitler and nowadays Sadaam and Kim Il Jung. America doesnt have to have her soverignty threatened in order to help other nations. How can we know whats best for them ? It doesnt really take a genious to know that a sadist like Saddaam Hussein isnt "whats best for them".  It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that North Korea would be better off not having a starving populace while thier leader has golden shitcans. You yourself need to look up imperialistic it seems..

Imperial adj
                  #  Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.


   1. Having supreme authority; sovereign.
   2. Regal; majestic.

Now name one country we "rule over" ? Please say Iraq where there is not one American in thier policy making or government.. Every single country weve ever defeated rules themselves.
*see Japan Germany Korea etc..

CameronPoe wrote:

PS If the US aren't acting imperialisitically then why are they undermining the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Surely they should be glad to see democracy in action. But wait - a large chunk of US oil imports come from there - what a coincidence.

Another fine example of you lack of understaing the work imperial. Do we govern Venezuela ? I dont think so.. Furthermore the supiditiity of that question is amusing. He may have been democratically elected by the poor on his promise to empower them (in which he hasnt) he is a socialist and an authoritatian who is openly anti american and a violator of human rights. Thats why..

Its so cool that youre anti America and anti establishment. Maybe Castro will care what a scrawny pale Irishman who hates America thinks. You can have a cigar and talk about how frustrating it is having no power . While youre in Cuba if you know any Spanish use some of that Community College engineering to help them make some better floatation devices cause the shit they throw together to get out of Cuba by any means necessary is killing alot of them.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Then your view is short sighted imo. Inaction leads to people like Mussolini Hitler and nowadays Sadaam and Kim Il Jung. America doesnt have to have her soverignty threatened in order to help other nations. How can we know whats best for them ? It doesnt really take a genious to know that a sadist like Saddaam Hussein isnt "whats best for them".  It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that North Korea would be better off not having a starving populace while thier leader has golden shitcans.

Well knowing what's best for them in Iraq appears to be a state of perpetual near civil war and serious US governmental tinkering with the structure of their 'government'. First you starve the Iraqis then you decimate the country and then you let it descend into civil war. Quite the professionals.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

You yourself need to look up imperialistic it seems..

Now name one country we "rule over" ? Please say Iraq where there is not one American in thier policy making or government.. Every single country weve ever defeated rules themselves.
*see Japan Germany Korea etc..

You seem to have been completely ignorant to what I defined imperialism as in my own terms at the bottom of my post. Re-read and try again. This is not imperialism in the traditional sense (like the Spanish, Brits, Belgians or French).

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PS If the US aren't acting imperialisitically then why are they undermining the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Surely they should be glad to see democracy in action. But wait - a large chunk of US oil imports come from there - what a coincidence.

Another fine example of you lack of understaing the work imperial. Do we govern Venezuela ? I dont think so.. Furthermore the supiditiity of that question is amusing. He may have been democratically elected by the poor on his promise to empower them (in which he hasnt) he is a socialist and an authoritatian who is openly anti american and a violator of human rights. Thats why..

You don't govern it but it appears as though you would like to!! What gives the US the right to do anything in Venezuela? Let them sort it out themselves. He has been democratically elected in successive elections so he must be doing something right. It's the whole 'we think we know best so we're gonna fix it' attitude that gets to me. How hard is it to just let them run their own affairs? How the fuck does it concern the US?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Its so cool that youre anti America and anti establishment. Maybe Castro will care what a scrawny pale Irishman who hates America thinks. You can have a cigar and talk about how frustrating it is having no power . While youre in Cuba if you know any Spanish use some of that Community College engineering to help them make some better floatation devices cause the shit they throw together to get out of Cuba by any means necessary is killing alot of them.

Cheers for the personal attack. Mature as ever. Lack of understanding and willingness to actually comprehend the things I've written again leads you to descend to insults. You also seem incapable of separating 'hatred of a country' and 'disagreement with elements of the foreign policy of a country'. Come on - insult me again: this time make it witty.

stryyker wrote:

False sense of dominance

I disagree, and here is why:

the world as a whole consistently looks to the U.S., to solve the world's problems.  If you hear about a tragedy, or a major conflict, the first words out of other countries' mouths is "what is the U.S. going to do?"  Can we get the U.S. to help us?  How much aid can they send?  How many troops can they/will they put on the ground?

I really think that because the U.S. is the worlds only real super-power these attitudes are becoming the norm, and they have bred a sense of responsibility/fathering in our government, even though this "sense" is misplaced at times.

Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-08-03 04:01:57)