|
America is right about ::insert:: (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by razmataz
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. |
I agree with you that US foreign policy is less than benevolent in its actions, but i don't think its fair to use a generalisation like that.
besides Yoepus is a texan :whip: |
|
|
| Virus |
| No answers to Irish and ruperts posts, what a shock! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Virus
No answers to Irish and ruperts posts, what a shock! |
well actually I'm only a semi-Texas, I'm a natrualized Texan see.. a bit Israeli though;) |
|
|
| Virus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
well actually I'm only a semi-Texas, I'm a natrualized Texan see.. a bit Israeli though;) |
That was some other guys post, but thanks for answering I guess =) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Virus
That was some other guys post, but thanks for answering I guess =) |
Well honestly, I didn't want to post on it because if you haven't caught what is wrong with their arguments you probably won't want to see the wrong with it.
And what is wrong with their arguments is really easy to locate, it is their narrow view point of benevolency.
America's actions during the Cold War were benevolent towards the entire safety and stability of the world, typically at the expense of some countries.
So yes, perhaps Chilenes or Indonesians weren't all the happier of it (although they are today.. they are both the more successful nations in their regions today) but the rest of the region was the better for it. It prevented the stop of communism and the repression associated it.
It is the same pricinple to say that the people of the Bathist party in Iraq are worse off because of US "interest", when in reality these US "interest" were only followed to free the people of Iraq, and inspire a new approach to liberalisim in the middle east - a result that will benifit the whole world, and not just one nation or another.
Historically, such action was necessary to contain communism, and allowed it to collapse in itself. Without doing it we might not have seen the propserity of the 90s and today.
Would it be more benevolent to ignore communism? It wasn't a direct threat to the USA, it could hold its own - it had an infintely large nuclear aresnal and both Russians and Communism were far away. However, the USA refused to live in a world where it was isolated, surronded by a communist world and decided to fight it.
Was this in the interest of the USA? Sure it was, the USA was happy to enjoy the economic opprotunities of a capitilist world. But did they do it mostly for their narrow interests? No, they did it because they believed it was the right thing to do.
Does the US always act in the smartest way? No. Does it always act in the best way? No.
But I believe that the US always tries to act in the best way, and I believe it has followed that pattern for the entirety of its history. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
America's actions during the Cold War were benevolent towards the entire safety and stability of the world, typically at the expense of some countries.
So yes, perhaps Chilenes or Indonesians weren't all the happier of it (although they are today.. they are both the more successful nations in their regions today) but the rest of the region was the better for it. It prevented the stop of communism and the repression associated it.
It is the same pricinple to say that the people of the Bathist party in Iraq are worse off because of US "interest", when in reality these US "interest" were only followed to free the people of Iraq, and inspire a new approach to liberalisim in the middle east - a result that will benifit the whole world, and not just one nation or another.
Historically, such action was necessary to contain communism, and allowed it to collapse in itself. Without doing it we might not have seen the propserity of the 90s and today.
Would it be more benevolent to ignore communism? It wasn't a direct threat to the USA, it could hold its own - it had an infintely large nuclear aresnal and both Russians and Communism were far away. However, the USA refused to live in a world where it was isolated, surronded by a communist world and decided to fight it.
Was this in the interest of the USA? Sure it was, the USA was happy to enjoy the economic opprotunities of a capitilist world. But did they do it mostly for their narrow interests? No, they did it because they believed it was the right thing to do.
Does the US always act in the smartest way? No. Does it always act in the best way? No.
But I believe that the US always tries to act in the best way, and I believe it has followed that pattern for the entirety of its history. |
Here's the trick. Would the U.S. gotten involved in any of the above mentioned cases if there wasn't any self-interest involved? Is there an example of an international action/intervention (done by any country) that doesn't include some part of self-interest? I mean, there are a lot of conflicts around the world that never get any international attention (maybe the UNs fault). You may think I have a narrowminded view of the benevolence of independent nations, and maybe I do, but likewise you strike me to have a somewhat idealistic view of certain foreign affairs.
Sure, I'm not denying that the viewpoint of the communism system was cruel and opressive and that liberal democracies of today is vastly more humane and just (alhtough it has it's faults as well of course) but was this really what triggered certain U.S. actions during the cold war? Wasn't it more a struggle for power? If Soviet was ignored the U.S. influence and power on the world stage would have been drastically marginalized. After all. after WWII the U.S. emerged as a super power and no nation would allow that status to slip without a fight.
And in the case of Chile, is it right for one nation to decide what's best for a whole continent on the expense of the people in specific countries? I mean, that one nation could be wrong, or go about it the wrong way, and the whole thing would go pear-shaped. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Here's the trick. Would the U.S. gotten involved in any of the above mentioned cases if there wasn't any self-interest involved? |
I'm not saying that. Obviously there will almost always be some self-interest of the USA. But the question then, is how much self-interest?
Are you trying to tell me that the USA acted the way it did to try and help the starving peopel of Somailia, or the refugees being slaughtered by the Serbs because they had a great self-interest? Why? Did it capture and enslave the populace? Did it loot those areas for wealth? Did those areas and people threaten the very survial of the USA? No. And neither did the Soviets, the Vietnamese, the North Koreas, the Germans, the Italians, the Turks, the Austrians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Chilenes, the Indonesians, the Afghans, the Chinese, the Morocons, etc.
Did any of these nations really pose a threat to the USA's survial? No. Not even Japan who attacked and attempted to destroy the USA's entire pacific fleet threatened American surivial. The USA could have saved face, accepted its loses and pulled out of the pacific, or pre-Pearl harbour allowed the Japanese to do what they were doing without the threat of oil sanctions.
Even the current war on terrorism is not really a war for the USA's surival. If it wanted, it could just pull-out of the middle east, just as the terrorist have demanded to avoid their nusiancing attacks and turn a blind eye to their actions everywhere in the world. Undoubtedly of course, this would cause the USA much economic shock, but then again so did the war in Iraq and all the money spent on homeland security.
Of course if the USA was not a target, do you think the terrorist would simply just stop and disappear? Or do you think they would adopt another enemy? Perhaps first Israel as it is closest, then Turkey nearby, India of course, and next Europe and the rest of Africa. The USA could stear clear from terrorism for the next 50 years at least as they attack those other targets, and who knows by then maybe the terrorist would simply just give up their fight?
Now this should be very alien to you as a European. Because the wars you have ARE for your very survial. I know as an Israeli, all the wars we had, HAD to be won. If they weren't millions would have been slaughtered, tortured, raped, and mutalized. We didn't have the luxury of option. It was either attack or be killed, it is not so simple with the USA, as they put their lives in danger only if they wish to respond.
I typically ask Europeans on this issue the following question; everyone has something they would be willing to die for, what would you fight to death for? (is this a narrow view or what?)
And do you know what they tell me? They say, Yes, I would be willing to die for my family. Well guess what, American soldiers aren't dying for their family. Perhaps its because the Americans don't have a narrow view, perhaps they do see themselves dying for their family in Iraq, because they worry if their family might get caught in a terror strike. Perhaps they are fighting for their family when they are helping the famined Somalian, perhaps they are fighting for their family when they try and stop the spread of communism as far as South/North east-Asia, perhaps, but if they are doing such it is a very extended and complex understanding of how these threats effect them.
The Europeans don't feel their families are threaten for terrorism, I know I don't feel threatend for my family's safety from terrorism in the USA, so what's the difference?
| quote: |
Is there an example of an international action/intervention (done by any country) that doesn't include some part of self-interest? |
I believe that Angola, Somalia, East Timor, Cyprus, the Balkans, Liberia, all are good examples of this.
| quote: | | Wasn't it more a struggle for power? If Soviet was ignored the U.S. influence and power on the world stage would have been drastically marginalized. |
If it was a struggle for power, why then commit vast resources to draining sources. What good did the Vietnam war do for the USA? What good did upsetting a few dictators and a lot of peopel do for it? Wouldn't there be a better use for their resources?
If I was struggling for power I know I would have taken a much more forecful and proactive approach throughout much of that era.
Of course you can also express power in many other fields, afterall why not go to mars if you are just proving you have more power?
| quote: | | After all. after WWII the U.S. emerged as a super power and no nation would allow that status to slip without a fight. |
Then why would that Super Power establish the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, allow the EU, free-trade agreemnts, give aid to the thrid world and all the other Super-Power draining establishments exisiting in our world today that it supports?
If you look at it through this perspective, the USA has done so many very stupid things if its sole aim was to preserve its superpower status. Personally, I would love the USA to retain its superpower status, and it looks this way in the future - but the reason I would love such thing is because this superpower is the stablaizing life-force of this planet, whether you want to admit that or not.
Just try and imagine the cold-dark place the world would be today if the entire USA all of a sudden just sank under the Ocean instantly, I know I wouldn't enjoy living in such a world.
| quote: | | And in the case of Chile, is it right for one nation to decide what's best for a whole continent on the expense of the people in specific countries? I mean, that one nation could be wrong, or go about it the wrong way, and the whole thing would go pear-shaped. |
Is it right to execute people for their alleged crimes? Is it right to kill a soldier even when he has his hands up during war? Is it right not to wear uniforms in war? No, its not right. But in war these things are sometimes necessary. And the USA realize that the world outside its borders is exactly that - in a state of war, the Hobbesian, "State of Nature" so to speak, enforcing justice is not always pretty, and can be very disagreeable to many.
And again, I do not state that the USA has not made mistakes in its desisions and in the way it has attacked throughout global conflicts in its history. Was it right not to bomb the German gas chambers till the very end of the war, despite the fact that the Americans had planes sitting on the fields for many days? IMO No. But I'm willing to overlook such things in perspective of the greater good - the USA after all was able to liberate all the Jews from the gas chambers at the end of the war. A war, they didn't even have to fight.
edit: grammer and readability - if you thought it is bad now you should have seen it before! |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| Thanks for you reply. I'll have to wait with my reply until tomorrow. Don't seem to find the time for this unless I'm at work. hmmm...wonder why.. :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
America is right about:
Hamburgers.
We did wonders with this invention. |
|
|
| rizen |
Wow, a good post by Yoepus :eyespop:
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
America is right about :
Hamburgers.
We did wonders with this invention. |
NOW WITH MADCOW! YUM :D |
|
|
| AC. |
| 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? |
Funny that you mention Vuetnamn. A war USA lost and war that the vitnames people didnt even want the USA to help them... |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
well actually I'm only a semi-Texas, I'm a natrualized Texan see.. a bit Israeli though;) |
One thing I've been meaning to ask you:
Did you come to America to escape compulsory military service in your country?
It's an honest question, and all the more relevant based on your foreign policy views.
;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
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. |
I agree. France and many other countries opposed the Iraqi war based almost solely on economic interests.
The catalyst for most US military and CIA backed interventions are of course to advance US economic interests, but there are exceptions. I feel quite sorry for those who believe every US military intervention past and present is based on advancing the “cause of freedom.”
That’s not patriotism, that’s blindness. |
|
|
|
|
