|
If not the USA then who in the World.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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 frontière.
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. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
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. |
|
|
| Shakka |
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. |
|
|
| 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.
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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 :). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
