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

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

Gee, and what exactly is your solution when that other culture is a radical fascist culture, determined to convert you, enslave you or kill you, as part of their "peace loving " beliefs.

Please show me one example where negotiations with Islamic extremists gives you promise that such dealings could take place..

Other nations can grow, but you are stupid to think they should be allowed to grow into another Third Reich.

Lowing we are in an age of nuclear deterrency and global trade. It is possible to fight idealogical wars through economic strangulation and ward off attack through the threat of mutual annihilation. Also, Islamic extremism is a minority movement - spurred on mainly by perceived western imperialism in the region. Remove our constant dabbling, the support of hated puppet governments and the vestiges of this perceived western incursion into the middle east and they will lose their main recruitment tool - 'resistance to the western/infidel  imperialists/crusaders'. The only tool left then will be the Israel-Palestine issue and western bias towards Israel.

PS I do not believe, personally, that the majority of muslims support any expansionism - they just want the middle east under their own control.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-03 04:07:59)

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

The fictional world you wish would happen

CAmeronPoe wrote:

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?

What exactly do we do to Venezuela. Simliar we dont like open antagoniasm of our society and government and that will be reflected in our economic relations with them.. other than that we have no relations with Venezueula. Why not blame Mexico who has open hostility in thier relations? It conecerns us becuase of thier close proximity and the shift from our previous good relations and trade.

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

Exscuse me perceiving your constant judgmental anti-american speeches as actually being anti american... duno how i could have misconstrued that. As if i havent seen you make many comments about Americans that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. As far as "personal attack" if thats in refrence to skinny pale? thats just an accurate description if you perceive that as an insult then thats a personal issue or maybe some self image discrepancy.

oh cameronpoe havent they had control over there countries for about 2000 goddamn years? huh and its still fucked up they have been fighting over there since the bible and before well what makes anyone think they are going to stop just cause? its in there nature to kill they have been doing it for so long they dont know how not too. i think the us should step back send the a bunch of baseball bats and let them kill the shit out of themselves !!!!!!

11thdsv wrote:

oh cameronpoe havent they had control over there countries for about 2000 goddamn years? huh and its still fucked up they have been fighting over there since the bible and before well what makes anyone think they are going to stop just cause? its in there nature to kill they have been doing it for so long they dont know how not too. i think the us should step back send the a bunch of baseball bats and let them kill the shit out of themselves !!!!!!

I agree with you that everyone needs to step back. They will squabble and fight but an equilibrium of their choosing will eventually prevail. Every nation and region needs to have its own war of independence, not have it fought for them.

How does a country "inforce itself into a situation."

CameronPoe wrote:

First you starve the Iraqis then you decimate the country and then you let it descend into civil war. Quite the professionals.

You present this as factual information when it is in fact fiction. Is there a civil war right now ? no... Starve them ? Iraq has a more solid infrastructure of power water and basic neccesseties than ever under Sadaam. So when we improve the country as far as quality of life you construe it as destroying it. When we empower them to create their own form of democracy we "tinker" with it. And when they have sectarian violence from extremeists you portay that as a civil war.. Youre not miss cleao and its common knowledge that when someone is anti america and anti iraq war they look for anything resembling doom gloom and despair so they can wag thier finger saying i told you so.

When and of course IF ever there is a civil war it can be presented as a fact and NOT untill then. Personally i dont hope for a country to tear itself apart out of spite.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

First you starve the Iraqis then you decimate the country and then you let it descend into civil war. Quite the professionals.

You present this as factual information when it is in fact fiction. Is there a civil war right now ? no... Starve them ? Iraq has a more solid infrastructure of power water and basic neccesseties than ever under Sadaam. So when we improve the country as far as quality of life you construe it as destroying it. When we empower them to create their own form of democracy we "tinker" with it. And when they have sectarian violence from extremeists you portay that as a civil war.. Youre not miss cleao and its common knowledge that when someone is anti america and anti iraq war they look for anything resembling doom gloom and despair so they can wag thier finger saying i told you so.

When and of course IF ever there is a civil war it can be presented as a fact and NOT untill then. Personally i dont hope for a country to tear itself apart out of spite.

Iraq does not have a more solid infrastructure of power, water and basic necessities than under Saddam - that is fantasy. Saddam was an evil man but under Saddam those services were guaranteed and run smoothly. At the moment, the infrastructure of Iraq is in tatters and even areas of Baghdad, the capital, experience regular blackouts and water shortages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/inter … mp;emc=rss

Quote from ex-interim prime miniser of Iraq Iyad Allawi:

But Mr Allawi, chosen by coalition forces to lead Iraq when its sovereignty was restored in 2004 and the leader who supported their assaults on Najaf and Fallujah, was adamant.

"We are losing each day an average of 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," he said. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is. Iraq is in the middle of a crisis. Maybe we have not reached the point of no return yet, but we are moving towards this point. We are in a terrible civil conflict now."

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How does a country "inforce itself into a situation."

I don't quite understand the quote either; but nonetheless, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. The world is watching every move America makes and will criticize our actions no matter what we do. We're not allowed to stay outside a conflict just as much of the world will chastize the country by claiming that we are butting in on a supposed civil war. Isn't it just great to be America these days?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

actually its not fiction but really old news. power and running clean water in places that have never had either and more reliable service but you dont want that to be true
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129334
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/gnfi/

more schools than ever before and so on
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ira … ?id=645861

and to date the USAID program alone has spent 5 billion
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/jul06 … 072706.pdf

and the us govt spend 28 million dollars a day and in 3 years spent 300 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php … Itemid=182

i suppose all that money on infrastucture magically dissapears?

You seem to need some perspective on what a civil war actually is. The real number is more around 30 people per day ..which is still bad but nowhere near what a civil war would be. Have a look at Yugoslavia or any other civil war for that matter to find a reasonable estimation for what civil war really is. Also the majority of those that die are not in sectarian violence but insurgent groups undermining security forces. But hey keep looking for that civil war youre hoping for ..maybe one day it could happen.

Well I'm not going to cast aspersions on the squeaky clean men and women over at Halliburton...

So civil war has a threshold deaths/day magic number. What is the exact figure? Both sectarian violence and attacks against/by the authorities consitute acts of civil war. I'd kind of listen to someone like Iyad Allawi with respect to the situation in Iraq, unlike you and me who are sat in offices theorising about what is going on. The fact that Iyad was a Washington favourite would have me mysitifed as to why he didn't say things in Iraq were all hunky dory.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-03 09:07:18)

dogpile1487 wrote:

if you watch the news for 5 minutes you will probably see something about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.  Whether that Israeli attacks are a good idea or not is not the issue i am trying to bring up.  what i'm trying to point out is that why is it the job of the US to step in and try to initiate a cease fire between the two countries?  shouldn't that be the job of the UN?  granted that nobody listens to the UN but still that's not the point.  no one sent a representative to try to initiate a cease fire between the US and Iraq.  It just seems that the US has been stepping over its boundaries and mingling in the business of other countries and this may be part of the reason that not too many people think highly of the US.  They may be one of the strongest nations in the world but they can't do anything they want.  i just want to bring this up for debate.  i am a US citizen and a registered republican but i still don't agree with everything that the US goverment is doing and i feel that is the right of the people to question what it's government is doing.  so let me know what you think about this subject.

When the Tsunami's struck East Asia a few years ago didn't the world just rail at the U.S. for not donating enough money fast enough?  Have people been calling for the U.S. to get involved in Darfor?  Isn't the word you're probably looking for "enforce" and isn't that word used in completely the wrong context?

Last edited by Chuckles (2006-08-03 09:22:46)

CameronPoe wrote:

So civil war has a threshold deaths/day magic number. What is the exact figure?

No we define whether something is a conflict or a war by the numbers of daisy's they plant per day.

Chuckles wrote:

And as far as America's imperialist designs, I'd like to assign you a little homework.  You'll better yourself, I promise.  Look up something called the Monroe Doctrine.  Then read about the Panama canal and how it came in to being.

Report back to us when your done and let us know what you've learned.

Thats some fancy talking down you just gave me ill see if i cant grasp the complex jist. You think im unaware of the monroe doctrine ..youre wrong im fully aware of the panama canal. When you have 2 years of college american history then you can talk to me. Now i got an assignment for you you'll need to reread exactly what you wrote and try to use logic this time.

Chuckles wrote:

So first you rail against people saying America is Imperialist, and then you complain that isolationism is counterproductive and that they should be out "freeing people from tyranny" when they get the chance?  That seems a little hypocritical.

So you associate foreign goodwill with imperialism ? Imperialism and Americas promoting democracy are not synonymous .. they are the antithesis. I know your logic was just broken or simply didnt comprehend. From what you just said then if i donate food to starving people im oppressing thier right to hunger. Or maybe just like these other folks who dont know what imperial means.

dogpile1487 wrote:

if you watch the news for 5 minutes you will probably see something about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.  Whether that Israeli attacks are a good idea or not is not the issue i am trying to bring up.  what I'm trying to point out is that why is it the job of the US to step in and try to initiate a cease fire between the two countries?  shouldn't that be the job of the UN?  granted that nobody listens to the UN but still that's not the point.  no one sent a representative to try to initiate a cease fire between the US and Iraq.  It just seems that the US has been stepping over its boundaries and mingling in the business of other countries and this may be part of the reason that not too many people think highly of the US.  They may be one of the strongest nations in the world but they can't do anything they want.  i just want to bring this up for debate.  i am a US citizen and a registered republican but i still don't agree with everything that the US government is doing and i feel that is the right of the people to question what it's government is doing.  so let me know what you think about this subject.

World Police dirka - dirka

In all seriousness - I would suggest you go back and search the facts first and you'll find that the US was invited to engage in most wars and conflicts from our allies and to help support freedom and democracy.
The obvious reasons do exist - what would happen if we didn't  {e.g WWII, Korean and Vietnam conflicts}.
Also, look what happens when we don't engage acts against humanity [Cambodia - over a million people slaughtered, Africa - over 800 thousand innocent women and children slaughter mainly with machetes, etc]

We are going to get criticized no matter what we do - Look at what's happening in Israel/Lebanon. 
We support a country for it's freedom and democracy, a country that is terrorized almost on a daily basis, one that had an act of war committed against it and all of a sudden we are dragged into it.  Israel doesn't need our permission to defend itself nor will it stop defending itself if we ask them too.   

Now for the bigger picture - Why would a terrorist group suddenly, at this specific time and place, chose to commit an act of war against another country - a terrorist group that functions openly in a country that is moderate and that's evolving?  What are others and ourselves to do [big picture and long term]. Should the people that can and will stand-up to these acts of terror and war allow it to continue - some serious shit man.

We do it because we can and should!  We are the thin Red, White, and Blue line between how bad it can be to how good we have it now [i.e. no different than between our organized crime and our law enforcement].

IMHO - The UN has proven to be ineffective, corrupt, and disfunctional.  The facts are that by time they respond thousands upon thousands of innocent people die and nothing lasting tends to come of it.
FYI - A UN resolution stated that Hezbullah was to be disarmed a long time ago [the UN has been in South Lebanon for years]- so who is to blame for what's happening now!

Kaboom.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Thats some fancy talking down you just gave me ill see if i cant grasp the complex jist. You think im unaware of the monroe doctrine ..youre wrong im fully aware of the panama canal. When you have 2 years of college american history then you can talk to me. Now i got an assignment for you you'll need to reread exactly what you wrote and try to use logic this time.

Imperialism and Americas promoting democracy are not synonymous .. they are the antithesis. I know your logic was just broken or simply didnt comprehend. From what you just said then if i donate food to starving people im oppressing thier right to hunger. Or maybe just like these other folks who dont know what imperial means.

Oh, my, two years of college level American history!  Should I call you Dr ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ?  I've had more than two years of college level American history, with an emphasis on military history.  My point was that the US has on several occasions acted in an imperialist manner.

Was I really using fancy talk?  Or do you just consider that to be fancy talk?  That would surprise me, seeing as you've had two whole years of American history, in college no less!  Your academic credentials astound me.  I reread what I wrote, and I guess I didn't connect the dots enough for you regarding the US's history of imperialism.

I certainly don't think that America is promoting democracy and imperialism are "the antithesis".  How was my logic broken?  The only broken logic I can see is when you take the leap from taking over someone's country to donating food.  I'd wager that to a lot of Iraqi's right now it looks like we are there as conquerors as opposed to just wanting them to be democratic.  We like to spread democracy so long as they don't elect someone that doesn't get along with us, i.e. the Palestinians and Hamas.  If that happens we shut you off.