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

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Sorry to call out your lie but even a major in history wouldnt take more than 2 years of American history. 

You seem to be lacking in the ability to detect sarcasm. Ill spell it out to you since you have troubles .. I am well versed in American history and am well aware of americas exspansionist tendencies in her adolecence and the Monroe doctrine and the Panama canal. Its also totally irrelevant in refrence to todays foreign policys and labeling them imperialism. Plus its totally arraogant to talk down to me assuming im ignorant on those subjects.

So you think promoting democracy and imperialism are synonomous? Aside from websters disagreeing with you  I do as well. Thats how your logic is broken labeling disasociating imperialism with promoting democracy as hypocrisy. We promote democracy as long as we dont get along with you ? Did we have a problem with Korea or Vietnam UNTIL the commies tried to take over ? Maybe you can put an oil spin or something on that. Or better yet ask Korea how they like our puppet imperial government?

Korea being a perfect example of how promoting democracy beneits the lives of millions of people.. but you would rather vilify and call that imperialism ?

Ok, Dr ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ, I'll try to explain it again and use smaller words for you.  If you go back and re read what I said, I didn't say promoting democracy and imperialism are synonymous.  I did disagree with you and say they weren't "the antitheses"  Words don't have to be either synonyms or antonyms.  Maybe in addition to your many hours in history class you should pick up some English, if you can fit it in.

Vietnam is a great example for you to have chosen.  They were so sick of French imperialism that communism looked like a better alternative.

By the way, why again is it ok for you to talk about your schooling but I'm a liar if I bring up mine?  How do we know you're not lying?
 
The odd thing is I think you and I actually agree with respects to the original intent of the thread.  I think the US is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, and that people are too quick to jump on the "US is an imperialist bastard bandwagon".  But the way you were arguing earlier both CameronPoe (apparently) and I thought you were trying to say that the US was above ever having been involved with imperialism.  That's just not true, and now I see that you seem to understand it.  Since this has basically become bickering between two people I'm willing to drop it if you are.

CameronPoe wrote:

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."

I hear this argument a lot, that Iraq was better off under Sadam, and I find it to be a scary argument.  It amazes me how little people actually know about Sagam and the Baath party.  The Baath party is the arab worlds Nazi party, and I'm not just saying that they act like Nazi's, I'm saying that former Nazi party members had there hand in forming the Baath party.  Sadam was actually tutored by a card carrying Nazi, and it is well documented that Sadam read Mein Kompf regurlarily.  Sadam tried to conquer the middle east on more than one occasion.  Sadam ruled his contry by killing anyone who tried to resist him, and would often kill entire families for one persons crime.

I don't care if everyone has golden toilets and used silk toilet paper, they are NOT better off under a ruler like Sadam.  I would have supported the overthrowing of Sadam well back into the 80's.  I am ashamed to know that the United States ever supported this man.  But he did have US support when he tried to take over Iran.  I really don't like how the US will support leaders like this in the name of "regional stability".  It's the wrong attitude because it's only short term stability.

I'll go on with mroe later.

ts-pulsar wrote:

I hear this argument a lot, that Iraq was better off under Sadam, and I find it to be a scary argument.  It amazes me how little people actually know about Sagam and the Baath party.  The Baath party is the arab worlds Nazi party, and I'm not just saying that they act like Nazi's, I'm saying that former Nazi party members had there hand in forming the Baath party.  Sadam was actually tutored by a card carrying Nazi, and it is well documented that Sadam read Mein Kompf regurlarily.  Sadam tried to conquer the middle east on more than one occasion.  Sadam ruled his contry by killing anyone who tried to resist him, and would often kill entire families for one persons crime.

I don't care if everyone has golden toilets and used silk toilet paper, they are NOT better off under a ruler like Sadam.  I would have supported the overthrowing of Sadam well back into the 80's.  I am ashamed to know that the United States ever supported this man.  But he did have US support when he tried to take over Iran.  I really don't like how the US will support leaders like this in the name of "regional stability".  It's the wrong attitude because it's only short term stability.

I'll go on with mroe later.

I hear this argument quite a bit too.  Basically "We did this for the good of the Iraqi people."  Really?  Because there was/is a genocide goign on in Darfur but we didn't do anything about that except look the other way and say "I sure wish you guys would stop that".   People are dying in Africa for want of a few dollars a day, and we're dumping about $10,000,000 per hour in Iraq.  So I have a hard time believing we invaded Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts. 

Meanwhile, the oil industry is reaping profits the like of which has never been seen in the history of the world.

ts-pulsar wrote:

I hear this argument a lot, that Iraq was better off under Sadam, and I find it to be a scary argument.  It amazes me how little people actually know about Sagam and the Baath party.  The Baath party is the arab worlds Nazi party, and I'm not just saying that they act like Nazi's, I'm saying that former Nazi party members had there hand in forming the Baath party.  Sadam was actually tutored by a card carrying Nazi, and it is well documented that Sadam read Mein Kompf regurlarily.  Sadam tried to conquer the middle east on more than one occasion.  Sadam ruled his contry by killing anyone who tried to resist him, and would often kill entire families for one persons crime.

I don't care if everyone has golden toilets and used silk toilet paper, they are NOT better off under a ruler like Sadam.  I would have supported the overthrowing of Sadam well back into the 80's.  I am ashamed to know that the United States ever supported this man.  But he did have US support when he tried to take over Iran.  I really don't like how the US will support leaders like this in the name of "regional stability".  It's the wrong attitude because it's only short term stability.

I'll go on with mroe later.

Pulsar - I never said they were better off under Saddam. I just don't see it as the place of the west to dabble in the affairs of other developing nations. By and large I don't think they particularly take kindly to the west's arrogant and patronising 'we know best' attitude and a lot are suspicious of the ulterior motives. I was just citing examples of how public services haven't returned to pre-war efficiency. I wasn't saying it was all gumdrop smiles and scented roses during Saddam-era Iraq. Saddam was a vicious animal.
The Ba'ath party are similar but not identical to the Nazis. They want a pan-arab state. Gunslinger OIF II has a good post on the similarities between them and the Nazis - you should look it up. This 'Mein Kampf' fan was propped up and supported by the US for many years as you said, until he overstepped the mark. He probably thought he would get the support of the US when invading Kuwait - his critical error of judgement. This is an example of the kind of western intervention I don't agree with and what this thread is about. The US supported Iraq because they were 'secular' (even though it was a dictatorship) and was anti-Iran (an Islamic Republic that had nullified all western influence over the oil there when the Shah was exiled). The US currently supports what are effectively dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Nobody seems to call for their liberation because - they're on the side of the US. The US seem to be saying one thing and doing another - peddling their stock 'Liberty' & 'Freedom' speeches whilst ignoring the plights of people in non-democratic countries whose governments they support. Having said that I don't think the US should intervene in those countries - each nation must fight its own battle in my view.

RDMC(2) wrote:

Korea?

at the behest of south korea

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-08-03 13:18:19)

TeamZephyr wrote:

For the last 60 years America has got itself involved in soooo many places that it hasn't been challenged to or asked by that country's government.

Ahmadenijad's not going to ask us to take over his own country, this is in reference to Kuwait asking us to kick Saddam out.

These forums have really gone to shit.  they used to be good, but now its just filled with anti american sentiment.  I guess what im trying to say is who gives a shit about what you think of america or americans for that matter.

For a group of people who really dont like us, you sure seem to talk about us a lot.. That is pathetic!

EVieira wrote:

Chuckles wrote:

I hear this argument quite a bit too.  Basically "We did this for the good of the Iraqi people."  Really?  Because there was/is a genocide goign on in Darfur but we didn't do anything about that except look the other way and say "I sure wish you guys would stop that".   People are dying in Africa for want of a few dollars a day, and we're dumping about $10,000,000 per hour in Iraq.  So I have a hard time believing we invaded Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts. 

Meanwhile, the oil industry is reaping profits the like of which has never been seen in the history of the world.

That's the naked truth. Why dump so much money there, when there so much to be done in so many other places, much poorer and needed than the people of an oil-rich country? And if America is doing this for the freedom of the Iraqi people, why is it allied with countries that don't have the democratic freedom America boasts so much about, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

To answer that and the question of this topic, because US must maintain its political and economic upper hand on the world. Its superpower status depends on it.

Yes. We musn't let anyone even imagine buying oil in any currency but ours! It would mean the end of freedom in the world!

SiMSaM16 wrote:

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?

Funny how we got to be in that position economically by depriving another nations people of their own freedoms, isn't it?  Actually, depriving two full nations of their own freedoms to sanctify/justify our own.  That really has nothing to do with our bicameral republican democracy.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

SiMSaM16 wrote:

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

Funny how we got to be in that position economically by depriving another nations people of their own freedoms, isn't it?  Actually, depriving two full nations of their own freedoms to sanctify/justify our own.  That really has nothing to do with our bicameral republican democracy.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

Whats even more funny is you sit there and bash America at every turn, yet, you refuse to leave.

Perhaps he's trying to fix the problem rather than run from it? Perhaps he doesn't have the ability to leave the country? Gaining citizenship elsewhere can be difficult. Your statement is really irrelevant.

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Funny how we got to be in that position economically by depriving another nations people of their own freedoms, isn't it?  Actually, depriving two full nations of their own freedoms to sanctify/justify our own.  That really has nothing to do with our bicameral republican democracy.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

Whats even more funny is you sit there and bash America at every turn, yet, you refuse to leave.

Perhaps he's trying to fix the problem rather than run from it? Perhaps he doesn't have the ability to leave the country? Gaining citizenship elsewhere can be difficult. Your statement is really irrelevant.

Could be all that I guess..........But there is no way in hell that he is staying because he loves the freedoms and way of life and the opportunities that comes with living here could it? Nehhhh.......It has to be that he is being held here against his will.


LOL. Ya see, with all of our freedoms, we also have the freedom to get the hell out. Lots of people move to Canada, please don't try and tell me how hard it is to LEAVE America. this isn't North Korea or the Soviet Union.

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-03 15:58:27)

well, sir, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it