I've used the following argument many times to quiet a good success with political debates with 'europeans' who just can't believe that the US acts in benevolent interests, especially in Iraq.

The Europeans can't seem to understand why the USA is doing what it is doing in Iraq, they can only come with two conclusion, its either for the oil, or its either for their own private interest.

The argument I made is they are doing it for the stablity and betterment of the entire world, espeically the western world which Europe is a great part of.

So they say, you mean to tell me that the USA is doing Iraq (hehe) for completely unselfish reasons?

And I reply, you might think it is Bush is 'bad' and he is acting soley for his interest, but don't think of America in the scope of one presidency, if you have problems understanding that America acts to the betterment of the world you don't need to trust this adminsitration - trust the USA's history, for almost its entire history it has fought for the stablity and protection of the world, mostly out of benevolence.

From the Barbary Coast, to WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War.. is it so hard to believe then that the US has acted out of benevolence again?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I think the issue people have is with the "selective" nature of intervention. There are countless examples were the US doesn't get involved where it could, the UK too. Btw don't include WW11 in your little list please please don't thats most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Sorry I know your quite smart but that just not true. I personally don't hate America or it's policy it is just geared for whats best for America. Whats wrong with that? I mean I know they do act in a benevolent manner sometimes but normally when there is some other intrest involved. E.g. I don't think Iraq was about oil, but it was in their intrest to show the rest of the Middle East what it could and would do so quickly (taking out a LONG term dictor VERY quickly). And other stablity/WMD issues. But if you were a dictor or goverment doing or thinking of doing anything to piss off the US now would you do it? Hint hint Liba "Ohh look we found all of these nasty nuclear programs we don't want them anymore...." not saying Iraq was the only reson for that but a factor.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

de Tocqueville realized this over 150 years ago when he noted that no other nation had a citizenry that was so interested in the freedom of others as well as themselves.

As for the selectivity argument, we can't do it all. The US is most frequently chided over lack of action in Africa - a place that we never had any diplomatic interests in (apart from Liberia and Somalia where we have intervened). Perhaps if the Europeans hadn't used it as their personal military playground for 100 years, things would be in better shape.

no i think it is one of those "liberal hippie haven of drug-induced alternate reality universe" movies

Rambo 3, now that's where it's at!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi no i think it is one of those "liberal hippie haven of drug-induced alternate reality universe" movies Rambo 3, now that's where it's at!

hey! when'd you become a Supreme TranceAddict anyway??

This sux! I demand a promotion.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok a place that we never had any diplomatic interests in (apart from Liberia and Somalia where we have intervened)

EXACTLY

As I said the US is selective. Saudi Arabia = dictorship, people being tortured so on and so forth. Yet everybody has a good relationship with them because they play ball. Lets see what would happen if this was a headline "US Business Man Arrested In Saudi, Confession Beaten From Him, Execution Next Tuesday". Wouldn't happen becuase the Saudis know better. The US wouldn't let that happen to one of theirs but they let the Saudi's do it to their own and deal with them just the same. Anyone who thinks that any goverment is completly altruistic is wrong. While they might be slightly they won't put themselfs out for it. A goverment is responcible for the best intrests of their people, no one elses. But of course pulling yourself out of the world and not doing anyone favors is a dumb thing to do.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok de Tocqueville realized this over 150 years ago when he noted that no other nation had a citizenry that was so interested in the freedom of others as well as themselves. As for the selectivity argument, we can't do it all. The US is most frequently chided over lack of action in Africa - a place that we never had any diplomatic interests in (apart from Liberia and Somalia where we have intervened). Perhaps if the Europeans hadn't used it as their personal military playground for 100 years, things would be in better shape.

Well, in the light of de Tocqueville's observation some of the U.S. interventions seems a bit odd. Supporting the rise to power of dictators such as Chile's Pinochet (over the democraticly elected Allende) och the Shah of Iran. The mess we see in Iran today is a direct result of the latter.

I am absolutly convinced that there are no government on this earth that doesn't do stuff out of self interest. Thinking about the costs and risks involved in international intervention it doens't make sense for a country to take action without something to gain (yes, I'm a cynic). A big enough threat, of course, would justify action in case there is nothing else to gain but apart from that I don't think you have to look very far to see the possible "winnings". Economic, strategic, political or whatever.

___________________
www.assortedtrance.com
www.facebook.com/assortedtrance
http://www.soundcloud.com/johannilsson
http://www.di.fm

It’s this “America is right about ::insert::” attitude. America emanates a “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” attitude and that it is ALWAYS right no matter what.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus hey! when'd you become a Supreme TranceAddict anyway?? This sux! I demand a promotion.

Promote yourself, hell, you almost have 1000 posts, get a custom status for christ's sake!

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

So was the USA helping all those countries whose governments it overthrew with the support of the CIA to replace with military dictatorships - Chile and Indonesia are but two examples?

Was the USA helping all those countries whose governments it destabilized by supporting terrorists who were trying to overthrow the governments - insert Latin American country name?

What about all those Security Council initiatives the USA vetoes which would improve global security?

What about how the USA has over the years systematically starved the United Nations of funds to emasculate it?

Anyone who thinks the USA is a friend to weak and dispossesed lives in a fantasy world. Any weak and dispossessed who are helped by the USA are purely incidental to the main aim of the USA - the protection of global corporate interests. Thats just the way it is

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus From the Barbary Coast, to WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War.. is it so hard to believe then that the US has acted out of benevolence again?

Vietnam? First Gulf War? Benevolence? Surely, you can't be serious. If it is funny to you that Europeans can't seem to tolerate American foreign policy, its funnier to me that the only ones who support it whole heartedly are Israelis.