|
US should mind their own business (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spacey Orange |
| the very existence of the US depends upon on its ability to conquer or control. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
LOL!
Amazing how selective arguements get when trying to make a point huh? :p |
Yea those countries were just some off the top of my head too!
With some more thought, heres a few others:
China, Lebanon, South Africa, East Timor, Indonesia, Columbia, Venezula, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Philipines and Ireland.
I'm sure I could think of more too if I really wanted. But at least in one point in time, the people of these nations cried out for US help, and recieved it. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
the very existence of the US depends upon on its ability to conquer or control. |
Right, so pre-1850 the USA didn't exist?:conf: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Right, so pre-1850 the USA didn't exist?:conf: |
One word: Slavery.
EDIT: One more word: Native American Indians. :D |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| the US in not alone in this (thos its the focus here) the 'US' could easily be replaced by France in Inochina and Africa, England in Asia and the Americas, Spain in Latin America, Portugal in South America, Holland in Southeast Asia and Africa, Germany in Europe (?), the Japanese in Southeasr Asia, the creation of England hundreds of years ago, Mongols in 1500 years ago, the Turks, the Greeks, the Romans, and on and on and on . . .the story is as old as civilization. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
One word: Slavery.
EDIT: One more word: Native American Indians. :D |
Slavery was around waaaay before America.
You'll notice after the U.S. Civil War there hasn't been much slavery around?
Native American Indians, while tragic, are not the only indigenous race to have been conquered in an era of exploration and colonization.
In that period of time there were MANY races conquered and displaced; that's the way it was at that time.
Pointing out the U.S. under the banner of this arguement to try and support one's opinion on their foreign policy is incorrect.
The U.S. isn't interested in taking over a 'project' country when they know that country should be able to run itself.
It's more a matter of babysitting thumbsucking countries that don't know how to take care of themselves... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I say, how's the view up there from the Ivory Tower, occ? ;) |
It'll be better once you pass the tea and crumpets :). |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by brashy
I didn't call you brainwashed. What I said was the it is necesarry to hear many different opinions in order to get the big picture.
For example, young French and German people have started to resent the American political influences over Europe. The French Constitution case is classic (see thread), since it tends to replace traditional French laws and values so as to comply with new reglementations supported by Americans. In former Eastern Germany the young communist meetings are frequent; even disregarding these radicals, young people feel that the country's economic system is not working as it should (see high taxes, unemployment). Thus they pledge on concentrating on intern europen reforms, and not on political deals with America. |
well we can watch it over here its called PBS:rolleyes: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
the very existence of the US depends upon on its ability to conquer or control. |
youre an idiot:D
The american government does a lot of action for special interests but so has a lot of other governemnts before the US |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Slavery was around waaaay before America.
You'll notice after the U.S. Civil War there hasn't been much slavery around?
Native American Indians, while tragic, are not the only indigenous race to have been conquered in an era of exploration and colonization.
In that period of time there were MANY races conquered and displaced; that's the way it was at that time.
Pointing out the U.S. under the banner of this arguement to try and support one's opinion on their foreign policy is incorrect.
The U.S. isn't interested in taking over a 'project' country when they know that country should be able to run itself.
It's more a matter of babysitting thumbsucking countries that don't know how to take care of themselves... |
I never said we inveted it (slavery).
The natives were'nt just merely "conquered" and "colonized", their entire race (pretty much) in what is now the US was MASSACRED and WIPED OUT. There's a big difference. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
did the world not cry out for america's help in ww2? sorry if its already been raised. but i understand secret deals were made with hitler to invade/attack the us to draw them into the war, if needs be. plus there was a number of propaganda films made to rouse us support for the allies.
as the worlds only superpower, they have an obligation to intervene and use their resources to help countries. i would agree with what someone said earlier about the US being critized if they did nothing. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Hmm lets think...
Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, UK, France, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jorda, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Iraq, South Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Hiati, Somalia, Balkans
...
China, Lebanon, South Africa, East Timor, Indonesia, Columbia, Venezula, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Philipines and Ireland.
I'm sure I could think of more too if I really wanted. But at least in one point in time, the people of these nations cried out for US help, and recieved it. |
You didn't think you would get away with this so easily did you? Now, I'm not a historian so I recognize that there might indeed have been situations where the people of those countries cried out for US military intervention and got it, and I just haven't heard about it. But here's my initial thoughts on your list:
Poland, UK, and France - I'm guessing that you're referring to WW2? The US only entered this after being attacked itself - staying out of harms way for a couple of years. So while the US lend a helping hand to these countries, it was not an intention of the US per se.
Iraq - please. Remember those WMD?
Vietnam - FFS please. The majority of the Vietnamese population wanted to join North Vietnam in bliss communism. The US interfered because it hated communism more than it respected democratic ideals.
Canada, Russia, Ireland, South Africa, Mexico, Georgia, Ukraine, India - which military interventions are you talking about?
Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Panama, Hiati, Saudi Arabia, China, Lebanon, Indonesia, Columbia, Venezula, Philipines - ah the great democracies. You're bitching about people complaining about the US policies - not governments. The people of these countries are not adequately represented by their governments, and even if they were their governments are not criticizing the US policies. So however which way you choose to look at the concept "people", if you apply it consistently there's nothing to see here. Further for all contries but Haiti and Columbia I don't have a clue what military intervention you're refering to. Presence of military bases perhaps?
East Timor, Somalia - I thought these were UN operations?
Balkans - I thought this one was a Nato operation, and then a UN operation? But even so, I'll grant you this one, because the US was the main agitator behind the intervention. Whether the people actually wanted it we will have to hear Drug_Tito about.
Israel - yes, although I wouldn't classify your help to Israel as military intervention per se, I guess it's a valid entry. However, the people of Israel is *not* complaining about US colonialism, so the example is really irrelevant for the discussion.
South Korea - granted. Wanted help and are complaining. |
|
|
|
|
