TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- If not the USA then who in the World.

If not the USA then who in the World.

A question that seemingly never gets asked is if the United States does not combat international terrorism, speak out and put pressure on North Korea and Iran about its nuclear programs, then who in the world will do it. The UN, remember they were kicked out of North Korea by Kim Jong-Il and will never get back in unless America writes North Korea a big fat taxpayer check, Iran claims it imported contaminated uranium from the materials it purchased for its peaceful energy production nuclear plant, hence the contamination. If the US was to quit international policing tomorrow, interesting to see how things would develop, who would deal with these issues effectively. This is the question I would like you guys to answer.

The United States "policing" efforts have killed 100,000's of thousands if not millions of people, and for what? Places still have nuclear programs, attrocities and genocides still happen? And more to the point I do not see anything, aside from pure speculation, that supports the theory that if the United States were not "policing" the world, that anything would be worse.

I for one favor American isolationism as best as can be done in this day and age. I support removing our troops from Asia, Europe and the Middle East, and let the world deal directly with the Osama bin Ladens and North Korea, et al. This means tightening the US borders in a strongly concentrated manner from North and South, simply engage in finance and trade and that is it. Tthis coming from someone who immigrated to the U.S from South America (Guyana). My point is people consistently hammer at the U.S. but have no solutions, how would the U.N. deal with North Korea for example.

I actually floated this idea a while back when I got pissed off seeing S. Korean's protesting our presence there.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...0137&perpage=15

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio The United States "policing" efforts have killed 100,000's of thousands if not millions of people, and for what? Places still have nuclear programs, attrocities and genocides still happen? And more to the point I do not see anything, aside from pure speculation, that supports the theory that if the United States were not "policing" the world, that anything would be worse.

I propose these points, mon ami, nord de la fronti�re.

1. How do you deal with North Korea
2. How do you deal with Islamic militants outside of the Palestinian conflict such as Al Quaeda, Indonesia, etc.
3. How does the world community balance economic aims such as Russia's building of a nuclear plant for Iran, against security concerns about Iran building nuclear weapons. Russia will not stop and neither should they, but should Iran mullahs have a nuclear bomb, I guess it depends on your position.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I actually floated this idea a while back when I got pissed off seeing S. Korean's protesting our presence there. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...0137&perpage=15

I definitely agree with you dude, the U.S. should look long and hard at removing their military from these places then people will have nothing to bitch about rightly or wrongfully. For all nations that want to be superpowers remember unsteady is the head that wears the crown.

Make no mistake about it--as much as those countries would "love" to see Americans withdraw, they'd make a huge fuss as soon as the topic of cutting off funds came up. A lot of them want to have their cake and eat it too. If the U.S. cuts off financial aid, the world will gripe just as much as they did when it was about getting U.S. troops to leave.

Moral: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Don't try to do a good thing because someone out there will find a way to make you look all the worse for it.

I agree with you in one point, US is needed in the international community. BUT the thing that most people hate about US is that you are doing it wrong and only for your own purposes. a great example of this is iraq, seriosly, there is bigger problems in the world then saddam.

another problem with us foregin policy is that you don't think there is any other solutions then war, and after war you usally just goes on to the next war (and let the rest of the world take care of the bombed country). maybe you have learned something couse in the iraq war i think you are tring to take the country back on track (or perhaps you just want to get iraq as modern so the oil could be shipped =)).

and don't come and tell me you aren't dependent of the rest of the world. US would never survive without foreigen invsetors.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew and don't come and tell me you aren't dependent of the rest of the world. US would never survive without foreigen invsetors.

That's why my master plan of political isolation yet economic interaction would be ideal .

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I agree with you in one point, US is needed in the international community. BUT the thing that most people hate about US is that you are doing it wrong and only for your own purposes. a great example of this is iraq, seriosly, there is bigger problems in the world then saddam.

Sure, but then you're implying that it's the duty of the U.S. to look out for the interests of everyone else in the world before her own. Does that sound logical to you? I'm not trying to fault you, only trying to point out that the U.S. should look out for her own interests before trying to solve everyone elses problems for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sure, but then you're implying that it's the duty of the U.S. to look out for the interests of everyone else in the world before her own. Does that sound logical to you? I'm not trying to fault you, only trying to point out that the U.S. should look out for her own interests before trying to solve everyone elses problems for them.

I definitely agree with you man, whos interest should the U.S. have first.

That's right now I remember that French, German or Russian government that put the interest of the international community above its own national interest-(dripping with saracasm of course). Only a few days ago Vladmir Putin stated that Russia will ratify Kyoto only when the interests of Russia is met at all levels of its policies. How about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sure, but then you're implying that it's the duty of the U.S. to look out for the interests of everyone else in the world before her own. Does that sound logical to you? I'm not trying to fault you, only trying to point out that the U.S. should look out for her own interests before trying to solve everyone elses problems for them.

I would rather say that you act a lot in your own interest, and a bit in the international community's interest. For example you did nothing about Kongo even if there died 3-4 million people in that conflict (still not really solved), BUT Iraq may have some WMD and have a lot of oil, ohh that's interesting for US to attack. I have nothing against Iraqi people being liberated but i would be happier to see the kongo conflict solved, yes i see that it's not that easy to solve but anyway my point is that US is not acting as some kind of police in others interests. And yes i understand that you don't want to start a war with kongo that coasts x hundred billion dollars without getting anything back, but please don't think that you are so good and that you are helping everyone out in this world. And I also hope that you understand that people hate you because you are selfish in your foreign policies.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I would rather say that you act a lot in your own interest, and a bit in the international community's interest. For example you did nothing about Kongo even if there died 3-4 million people in that conflict (still not really solved), BUT Iraq may have some WMD and have a lot of oil, ohh that's interesting for US to attack. I have nothing against Iraqi people being liberated but i would be happier to see the kongo conflict solved, yes i see that it's not that easy to solve but anyway my point is that US is not acting as some kind of police in others interests. And yes i understand that you don't want to start a war with kongo that coasts x hundred billion dollars without getting anything back, but please don't think that you are so good and that you are helping everyone out in this world. And I also hope that you understand that people hate you because you are selfish in your foreign policies.

As a graduate in history I think that is a borderline rancourous statement to make in that the U.S went into the Balkans (what was to gain from that selfishness or Somalia, nothing like selfish U.S. Rangers dragged through the streets. Selective choices cannot be one sided, the U.S is not perfect I know this from years of studying history but neither is England, France, Germany, Spain and the list can go on. People should remember that unlike dictators Bush will not be around forever, its just how much foolish things will he do before he is sent packing from the White House. Americans are a proud people just like Iraqis, I believe that the public believed in the good intentions in Iraq, it is the political leaders that are failing this nation on the Iraq issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sure, but then you're implying that it's the duty of the U.S. to look out for the interests of everyone else in the world before her own. Does that sound logical to you? I'm not trying to fault you, only trying to point out that the U.S. should look out for her own interests before trying to solve everyone elses problems for them.

I would like to point out that the U.S. created a lot of those problems. Who do you think helped build Saddam Husseins power, and arsenol? The United States definitelly has more blood on its hands then ANY of the people it talks about taking out of power since you can count all the people Pinochet killed towards that, as well as Hussein as well as MANY MANY more. On top of those people there's all the people the U.S. have killed directly.

As far as Nuclear programs in various places I would like to clearly point out the U.S. never tried to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and even beyond that I would say it was instrumental in keeping them in this world. If the U.S. had signed anti-nuclear arms treaties and joined the international forces opposes nuclear weapons from the start then their is a good chance that the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons would have been realized.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I would like to point out that the U.S. created a lot of those problems. Who do you think helped build Saddam Husseins power, and arsenol? The United States definitelly has more blood on its hands then ANY of the people it talks about taking out of power since you can count all the people Pinochet killed towards that, as well as Hussein as well as MANY MANY more. On top of those people there's all the people the U.S. have killed directly.

So you don't think that Saddam is personally responsible for the choices that he made which ultimately put him in his position? It's the U.S.'s fault that Saddam decided to do one thing over another? Please...we're all responsible for our own decisions in this world. That's a sad excuse. There are plenty of bad people in the world, but to hold an entire country (the U.S.) responsible for the actions of 1 man is simply careless.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I would like to point out that the U.S. created a lot of those problems. Who do you think helped build Saddam Husseins power, and arsenol?

Damn! It must of been me, because I could have swarn Iraq had T-62s, Migs, Mirages, AK47 and other Russian and French armaments! I guess the US has decieved the world once again if this isn't the case

quote:

As far as Nuclear programs in various places I would like to clearly point out the U.S. never tried to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and even beyond that I would say it was instrumental in keeping them in this world. If the U.S. had signed anti-nuclear arms treaties and joined the international forces opposes nuclear weapons from the start then their is a good chance that the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons would have been realized.

What have you been taking?

Abolishing nuclear weapons being realized.. good one I needed that laugh.

I dont think that it is in anyway unreasonable for a power, such as the United States, to be held responcible for the actions of people that it supports, arms and puts in power. For example look at Pinochet, if it wasn't for the actions of the United States, it's vary unlikelly that he would of ever gotten close to the position he did. Once he did get into that position, thanks to the U.S. he killed thousands. How can one argue the United States isn't responcible for that? And more over, once the massacres had begun noone said anything to stop the dictator that they put in place.

And as far as getting rid of nuclear weapons, I agree that at this point it seems like there is no way it will happen. But there was a time when it seemed not only like it would be possible, but also probable if supported by all the key players.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Damn! It must of been me, because I could have swarn Iraq had T-62s, Migs, Mirages, AK47 and other Russian and French armaments! I guess the US has decieved the world once again if this isn't the case

Funny you should mention that. I saw this article on reuters for about 2 hours before it was taken down from the main page:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3555989

And a long time ago, I brought up a topic about French/German/Russian interests in iraq prior to the war.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...?threadid=92326

It wasn't really covered in the news and nobody really commented much anyway. But why would people need to? The News media only slants one way so we only need to worry about conservative bias right?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I would rather say that you act a lot in your own interest, and a bit in the international community's interest. For example you did nothing about Kongo even if there died 3-4 million people in that conflict (still not really solved), BUT Iraq may have some WMD and have a lot of oil, ohh that's interesting for US to attack. I have nothing against Iraqi people being liberated but i would be happier to see the kongo conflict solved, yes i see that it's not that easy to solve but anyway my point is that US is not acting as some kind of police in others interests. And yes i understand that you don't want to start a war with kongo that coasts x hundred billion dollars without getting anything back, but please don't think that you are so good and that you are helping everyone out in this world. And I also hope that you understand that people hate you because you are selfish in your foreign policies.

Wait wait wait. In one instance you are critisizing the US for being the world's policeman and in this instance you are criticising the US for not interfereing in Rwanda (by the way it was 1 million people) and NOT being the world's policeman??? I'm beginning to sense a double standard here. In the one sense we laud the UN for NOT intervening and taking a larger stance in policing Iraq, and in the other instance we CRITICIZE the US for NOT intervening and taking a larger stance in policing Iraq. Meanwhile the UN SITS on its ass the entire time, does nothing, and faces NO international criticism. I'm sorry, but Rwanda is my biggest pet peeve of the UN and I have had no respect for that institution since. And in case you had forgotten, the REASON why the US has been so incredibly hesitant about interfering in African civil wars was because of a direct result of Somalia where AGAIN the UN was an ineffective instittuion in restoring peace and order in the region.

Edit: Oh wait ... I completely misread your argument . Sory I'm drunk. Please disregard my previous post. I agree that the US oftentimes acts according to its interests, but then again every country does that ... I'll post more examples of the hyprcrisy I've noticed over the past several months later.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sory I'm drunk.

hehe me too...
shocking about the polish troops discovering france AA weapons... i wonder how they got there.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sory I'm drunk.

I'll third that

Ya.. could it be some vast French conspiracy.. after all weren't the French part of the international embargo that would check all cargo on ships going into Iraq...

Or maybe they just flew it in through the diplomatic pouch...

Nah most likely, they brought it in through Lebanon and Syria (we can't forget these are the areas the League of Nations GAVE to the French after WWI).

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That's why my master plan of political isolation yet economic interaction would be ideal .

Wasn't that Bush's foreign policy until Sept. 11, 2001?



MrS

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wait wait wait. In one instance you are critisizing the US for being the world's policeman and in this instance you are criticising the US for not interfereing in Rwanda (by the way it was 1 million people) and NOT being the world's policeman??? I'm beginning to sense a double standard here. In the one sense we laud the UN for NOT intervening and taking a larger stance in policing Iraq, and in the other instance we CRITICIZE the US for NOT intervening and taking a larger stance in policing Iraq. Meanwhile the UN SITS on its ass the entire time, does nothing, and faces NO international criticism. I'm sorry, but Rwanda is my biggest pet peeve of the UN and I have had no respect for that institution since. And in case you had forgotten, the REASON why the US has been so incredibly hesitant about interfering in African civil wars was because of a direct result of Somalia where AGAIN the UN was an ineffective instittuion in restoring peace and order in the region.

I tried to disregard you post but here is something i had to say

"So now we know: up to 4.7 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo's four-and-a-half-year civil war. The figure was announced this week by the International Rescue Committee, an American aid agency. Its lower estimate was 3.1 million; calculated via a more hopeful assumption about the vast areas of eastern Congo too murderous for its researchers to visit."

Yes Rwanda was involved in that war too but Congo have had a lot more casualties. 4.7 million, that is more than half the population of Sweden, and few seems to care. UN sent troops to Congo in year 2000, but only 5000 troops which didn't help much, i don't know if that was because no one cared or whatever it was....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.