• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American Moral Supremacy

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
G-Man said:
No, it failed because they arrested too many people.
I am more competent in Irish beer than IRA. All I can see is a big difference between internal problems of the western civilization and external ones.

G-Man said:
There ain't thousands at G-Bay..about 500 or so I think. Most were not CAPTURED by US foces..several were abducted from foreign countries (i.e Italy) but most have been handed over by the Pakistan forces and new Afghan govt. The fact of the matter is we know little, if anything ,about the majority of people detained - let alone if they are enemy combatants. Also, if these people have only attacked the Afghan or Iraqi govts (and not any US forces) then they are by no possible explanation enemy combatants against the US.


If thousands are allowed the hundreds are even more allowed. You are accepting they all are captured by American forces and allies. If they attacked our vital allies it makes them our enemies. It is normal action of a war coalition. Whatsoever they are enemy combatans, and therefore I only refer you to my previous post. If we don’t know about all tactics and plans of the military we follow the rules of warfare. I think we know too much .

G-Man said:
Our constitution does not give any rights to our forces which are captured by the enemy. How could it possibly do so?
I have to repeat. I am talking about :
Amendment V
‘’No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger.’’

As you can see general rights are revoked by us. When in service an American looses some common civil rights and obeys laws of military. You cannot give enemies combatants more rights in our system than you give to our soldiers.

G-Man said:
Terrorists are caught by intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies. This is a far more effective method.

I am afraid the most experts on terrorism (including SySgt) would not agree. I also do not see how it can work. Only a combined effort of all services and institutions including the American public can do. On other hand you are contradicting yourself when you complain you know very little about detainees –how would you know about actions of CIA? In the most cases intelligence services provide analytical work, not capturing. I am sure intelligent forces are already working with the military. Again Muslim terrorists are not spies or criminals. They are a different phenomenon.

G-Man said:
America and Americans can do what we please in the USA but when we start interfering in the lives of others (normally thousands of miles across the globe) they take objection.
It is your wish. It does not work in reality for thousands of years. Countries and cultures always interact. And in the most cases one side is not pleased by another one. It is the law of global existence you wish to break. You wish is respected but cannot be granted.

G-Man said:
N.B If you think they will change because of elections in Iraq you're mistaken.


No, I said by establishing a pro American regime in Iraq. With at least Turkey type advantages of democracy, our military bases, Iraqi army as an ally, and oil cards in our hands. It was my original intention, but I am afraid it is failing, due to political correctness.
G-Man said:
Hmm we are the worlds largest polluter. No-one can do worse than we are in this field!! How about trying to find alternative energy sources - without asking the oil & gas industry to do it!
As I said you have to look at dynamics. We all, including China are in race. So far we have the most regards to pollution, others WILL do worse. In order to find alternative sources we have to be the first in race – means to burn more fuel in our cars. The prize is an alternative fuel. The reality is there is no such fuel even on horizon. Just politically correct slogans.

G-Man said:
China is expanding yes but what does it matter if they could destroy the world 10 times whilst we could only do it 5 times?? We have all the military capability we will ever need (except maybe ground troops). Oil/Gas supplies are important (more so than they should be) thats why we are right in the middle of the mess in the middle east.

I am not talking about nuclear capability. It is accepted to be a very last suicidal resort by the Western civilization -- like it is better to die fighting. I am talking about military strength, which would lead to the world domination. Russia has nukes too, but it is far away from the domination in spite of all attempts. China is coming.
G-Man said:
We're not free if you can be arrested, detained and imprisoned for an indefinite period without allegations or proof of a crime.

Yes. I do not see a threat for Americans –I see more like imagination and stretching reality.
G-Man said:
We don't follow the laws...maybe thats the problem?? .
I am talking about observed laws of human existence.
G-Man said:
If you want to see the end of terrorism try tackling the reasons behind it. However, I personally feel it is impossible to end terrorism for ever - thats why this 'war' is impossible to win.
As I said above you cannot change the laws of human nature and our way of life. For me the foundation of our way of life concentrates in the freedom of everlasting pursuit of never achieved happiness, which falls perfectly in basic description of human nature. Absolutely, we make our enemies by following our way of life. It is an absolute necessity for us to be in fight with the enemies in order to appreciate our freedoms. For me it is another basic law of human existence --- fighting, you get stronger and appreciate your freedoms more. This is the first reasons why enemies exist at all. It is somewhat like arguing to you I am making my mind sharper and I am learning. Without you I would be a complete idiot.

As to Muslim terrorism – I am leaning to agree with you. I do not see a real definition of the enemy more or less excepted by America. Starting from you with your feeling that they are like a criminal gang and finishing with comparison to war on drugs. I am not even sure SySgt with his theory of the clash of civilization would have too much of success, because even if he is trying to be a politically correct guy, his theory looks quite strange for the most people and may not look politically correct for the most, in my opinion. I try to show him my disagreements with some of his views, but I am fully aware if he follows any of my advises he would loose any kind of political correctness at all. So far on this forum I find him to be the best expert of reality. And I find the most people – as an observation of human nature – don’t like to face reality.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Justone:
It is an absolute necessity for us to be in fight with the enemies in order to appreciate our freedoms.
This has got to be the most ridiculous comment of the day. Bordering on total lunacy. We have enemies because we are so intolerant of other cultures and so arrogant that we think we know what is best and that our dad can lick your dad.

Raw raw, U-S-A
Watch me kick some a.s.s today!

Dude, you need to stop making excuses for your hatred of others and your inability to see with clear vision.
 
R

Rachel

Willoughby said:
Well you weren't the morally superior one in the past and its very doubtful you are the one in the present. over-throwning of latin american countries using the CIA to enstall dictators, Iran-contra etc etc etc


please please please...we don't want the US policeing the world..please no!

I'm sure things would have been much better if the U.S. had taken a more isolationist stance after WW2 and the U.S.S.R would still control half of Europe and be the one exerting pressure on countries around the world. :roll:

The world would have been a better place if only the U.S. didn't stick its nose in other people's business. Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in 91, helping to keep South Korea free, protecting Western Europe during the Cold War, liberating Europe together with the allies in WW2, and so on...
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rachel said:
I'm sure things would have been much better if the U.S. had taken a more isolationist stance after WW2 and the U.S.S.R would still control half of Europe and be the one exerting pressure on countries around the world. :roll:

The world would have been a better place if only the U.S. didn't stick its nose in other people's business. Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in 91, helping to keep South Korea free, protecting Western Europe during the Cold War, liberating Europe together with the allies in WW2, and so on...

You know the US has done a lot of good during its existance (and a lot of bad too) but the above is probably the worst bunch of examples you could have picked.

Kicking Saddam out of Kuwait - this wasn't done for the kuwaiti people, this was about oil. We got rid of Saddam and then re-instated the unlected monarchy. Even to this day there is still no 'freedom' in Kuwait and human righst are unheard of. The oil is still pumping though.

South Korea - not really a success story I feel.

Liberating Europe in WW2 - well we probably wouldn't have had to do this if we joined up to fight the Nazis back in 1940. You know they did ask us to help them (and we did with supplies I would like to add) prior to Germany occupying mainland Europe. This is probably one of our biggest shames and we only even entered the War because of the tragedy of pearl harbour - which was related to Japanese interest in the Pacific. You know Hitler declared war on us - not the other way round.

Recent actions to make the world a better place :-

1) Removing the Taleban - took a long time but we got there

2) War in Yugoslavia - I know a lot of people are uneasy about this but there was mass murder/genocide being commited and we stood by our Nato allies to end the crisis.

3) On-going Foreign aid - we should do a lot more but we are by no means the worst
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I see how the US has done lots of good things but it also has done lots of bad, not unlike lots of countries that i why i contest the idea that the US has supremacy..its not at the bottom of the moral pile but it ain't at the top
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
well we probably wouldn't have had to do this if we joined up to fight the Nazis back in 1940. You know they did ask us to help them (and we did with supplies I would like to add) prior to Germany occupying mainland Europe. This is probably one of our biggest shames and we only even entered the War because of the tragedy of pearl harbour

Roosevelt and Churchill had a very close relationship (for example, Churchill addressed his correspondence to Roosevelt as "Former Naval Person to President Roosevelt"). When the British first asked for our help, we supplied all that could be supplied without the participation of Congress immediately (e.g., the US stripped its reserve of about 2 million rifles, shipping the British almost half of them, along with ammo). The transfer to the Brits of a number of decommissioned US destroyers though, did require the participation of Congress, and it was quite difficult and took quite a while to finally get approved.

I mention this only to highlight how strong the isolationist sentiment the US at the time. Though many, especially in government, were certain that we would be involved eventually and probably the sooner the better - sooner rather than giving Hitler more opportunities to further develop his war machine and expand Germany's sphere of influence, thereby making it even more costly for us the longer we waited. But the isolationist sentiment was just too strong to overcome until Pearl Harbor.

Bottom line: you might refer to it as our 'shame', but it was the result of our political process. It is really just another example of a decision (the delay in entering the war in Europe) that looked appropriate at the time having unknowable consequences, but one that, in hindsight, leaves one wishing for more prescience.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is really just another example of a decision (the delay in entering the war in Europe) that looked appropriate at the time having unknowable consequences, but one that, in hindsight, leaves one wishing for more prescience.
Possibly the same can be said of appeasment of Hitler
 
R

Rachel

G-Man said:
You know the US has done a lot of good during its existance (and a lot of bad too) but the above is probably the worst bunch of examples you could have picked.

Kicking Saddam out of Kuwait - this wasn't done for the kuwaiti people, this was about oil. We got rid of Saddam and then re-instated the unlected monarchy. Even to this day there is still no 'freedom' in Kuwait and human righst are unheard of. The oil is still pumping though.

Oh, dear! The U.S. didn't do it solely out of the goodness of its heart!
Shame on us!!! You mean that some countries actually do things for practical reasons, to serve their national interests!!! I'm shocked!!!

And please show me that the Kuwaiti people are worse off now, compared to under Saddam's brutal occupation.


South Korea - not really a success story I feel.

Why don't you ask the people of South Korea how they feel?
Do you think they would be better off living in the same conditions as their brothers the North Koreans?

Liberating Europe in WW2 - well we probably wouldn't have had to do this if we joined up to fight the Nazis back in 1940. You know they did ask us to help them (and we did with supplies I would like to add) prior to Germany occupying mainland Europe. This is probably one of our biggest shames and we only even entered the War because of the tragedy of pearl harbour - which was related to Japanese interest in the Pacific. You know Hitler declared war on us - not the other way round.

Better late than never.


Recent actions to make the world a better place :-

1) Removing the Taleban - took a long time but we got there

2) War in Yugoslavia - I know a lot of people are uneasy about this but there was mass murder/genocide being commited and we stood by our Nato allies to end the crisis.

3) On-going Foreign aid - we should do a lot more but we are by no means the worst

I agree and I really am very sorry. I just didn't have time to list ALL the good things the U.S. has done over the years. That would take hours...

Thank you for pointing that out. :2wave:
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rachel said:
Oh, dear! The U.S. didn't do it solely out of the goodness of its heart!
Shame on us!!! You mean that some countries actually do things for practical reasons, to serve their national interests!!! I'm shocked!!!

And please show me that the Kuwaiti people are worse off now, compared to under Saddam's brutal occupation.

Why don't you ask the people of South Korea how they feel?
Do you think they would be better off living in the same conditions as their brothers the North Koreans?

Better late than never.

I agree and I really am very sorry. I just didn't have time to list ALL the good things the U.S. has done over the years. That would take hours...

Thank you for pointing that out. :2wave:

Sorry Rachel. I feel we are at crossed swords here.

This particular thread is in relation to American moral supremacy - I was merely pointing out that the events you listed were done to protect american interests and american idelogies. Whether thats right or wrong I'll leave you to make up your own mind but those actions were not undertaken based upon any idea of american morals and their supremacy.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
This has got to be the most ridiculous comment of the day. Bordering on total lunacy.
You do not like to face the reality, exactly as I told. I just was describing some basic observations of human existence. Of course I had to be simplistically short, but that was all about you.
You a kind of looking for an enemy to fight here. And I like you doing it, because you just confirm the observation.

Billo_Really said:
We have enemies because we are so intolerant of other cultures and so arrogant that we think we know what is best and that our dad can lick your dad.
Again, you are talking about some America I don’t see around me. We an example of cultural tolerance throughout all history of this country. I am telling you about my experience and the most people I know. Even total lunatics are quite tolerated on this forum as an example. This tolerance constitutes the core of American culture. And I count it as a moral supremacy.

Billo_Really said:
Raw raw, U-S-A
Watch me kick some a.s.s today!

Always like to watch. All of me is for USA.

Billo_Really said:
Dude, you need to stop making excuses for your hatred of others and your inability to see with clear vision.

What hatred? Where can you read a drop of it? I love my enemies, including you. It is always a pleasure to shoot you. How possibly I can hate a source of my pleasure?
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
G-Man said:
Whether thats right or wrong I'll leave you to make up your own mind but those actions were not undertaken based upon any idea of american morals and their supremacy.
I don’t like actions undertaken based upon any idea. I doubt ideas, because very often ideas do not reflect reality. I leave actions of war with a goal to spread ideas to Communists, Nazis etc.
As well I would rather provide help through charity organizations than through government. The matter is we do not have mutually agreed definition of our moral. What is it—10 Commandments? Our Constitution? Do we certainly know what is good and what is bad at a given moment for a given nation?. We often cannot agree on what is good and what is bad for our own nation. Each of us can choose a personally fit charity. I expect the govt. to spend my tax$$ buying for American interests, rather than for good feeling.

As an American I feel American moral supremacy and I told you in previous posts where it is concentrated for me personally. I do not feel going for a Crusade (not real Crusade, but how it is commonly viewed ) to spread my values.
My task is to preserve and protect my values in US even if I have to take a war action and throw a slogan of spreading freedom and democracy. I would hide a goal of establishing a pro-American regime, an ally behind the slogan. It just turns to be that a country with more democracy and freedom is a lesser challenge for our interests. The only goal is defend our life style. In reality we have to share the same planet with others – other nations, other moral values and life styles. In reality we are a very different country. In reality we cannot avoid interaction with others. We cannot avoid the energy flow created by the difference. We cannot be just left unchallenged. Accordingly I would prefer actions based on the whole picture of reality. I have no intention to sacrifice even a bit of American values to ideas and values formed on some island by some tribes somewhere (like GB). So, actions undertaken to protect American interests on the globe are actions to defend American moral supremacy. I give the same rights for others on the globe. I hope American moral supremacy will be dominating in dynamics.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
G-Man said:
Liberating Europe in WW2 - well we probably wouldn't have had to do this if we joined up to fight the Nazis back in 1940. You know they did ask us to help them (and we did with supplies I would like to add) prior to Germany occupying mainland Europe. This is probably one of our biggest shames

US just saved Europe delaying its liberation. A kind of unintentional luck. If US started liberation prior 1941, Hitler would not have a chance to attack Stalin, and thus Hitler would not be able to reduce the biggest danger for Europe and for the whole western civilization as we know it. No shame, just pure luck.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
justone said:
US just saved Europe delaying its liberation. A kind of unintentional luck. If US started liberation prior 1941, Hitler would not have a chance to attack Stalin, and thus Hitler would not be able to reduce the biggest danger for Europe and for the whole western civilization as we know it. No shame, just pure luck.

Biggest danger to europe? Well several millions would argue that was the Nazis (not the Soviets) if they could. As for reducing the danger - the fallout of WW2 was the cold war - ever heard of it?

Initial help provided to European countries would have stopped Hitler before he got out of Germany then stopped the land grab by the soviets in the aftermath - and the resultant cold war perhaps.

However, I'lll stick to the thread and suggest that our non-action showed a desperate lack of morals - only altered when we were forced into the war by Japanese hostilities.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
G-Man said:
However, I'lll stick to the thread and suggest that our non-action showed a desperate lack of morals - only altered when we were forced into the war by Japanese hostilities.


Not only are we clearly in a higher moral position merely by the fact that we fight to create liberty and self-government, but we also must continue to remove terror-sponsoring, genocidal war-mongers like Saddam to remain moral.

It was immoral for us to be isolationist about the Axis powers, just as pacifism in the face of Islamo-fascism would be immoral now.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was immoral for us to be isolationist about the Axis powers, just as pacifism in the face of Islamo-fascism would be immoral now.

How does an entire population, or at least the majority of the country as represented by its elected senators and congressmen become 'immoral'? I have a really hard time ascribing that adjective to the country as a whole. Remember, during the early years of WWII, we had no treaty obligations to come to the aid of or defend Britain or France or anyother country in Europe that might have been attacked.

How can being isolationist or pacifist or even the opposite, war-mongering take on attributes of morality? Those preferences, as expressed by the elected representatives of the voting population are simply facts, they are simply attitudes, they are simply preferences expressed by the governed, given the tenor of the times and circumstances.

Events may prove those preferences as ill-advised, even tragically so. But immoral? Given the duality of nature, in order to have an 'immoral' decision, wouldn't you also have to have the opposite of 'immoral'? Can you think of any decision by a government that would qualify as the opposite of 'immoral'?

One might be tempted, in keeping with the current time frame under discussion, to say that the decision to declare war on Japan after Dec 7 was 'moral'. Would you?

And how does this 'immoral' argument square with the criticisms leveled at the US now, for being the world's policeman'...or criticism from those in the opposite camp for not being the world's policeman, depending on one's point of view?
 

Sir_Alec

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
aquapub said:
Not only are we clearly in a higher moral position merely by the fact that we fight to create liberty and self-government, but we also must continue to remove terror-sponsoring, genocidal war-mongers like Saddam to remain moral.

It was immoral for us to be isolationist about the Axis powers, just as pacifism in the face of Islamo-fascism would be immoral now.

Im all for taking down terrorists and dictatorships but the war against terror was undertaken improperly. And if were so moral why didn't we save Rwanda from genocide? Sudan from the civil war? The Philippines? Do we not take away rights from our minorities to this day. Does the gov't do everything out or moral duty or the money and power thats to be made?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by aquapub
Not only are we clearly in a higher moral position merely by the fact that we fight to create liberty and self-government, but we also must continue to remove terror-sponsoring, genocidal war-mongers like Saddam to remain moral.

It was immoral for us to be isolationist about the Axis powers, just as pacifism in the face of Islamo-fascism would be immoral now.
It's never moral when you break the law.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not only are we clearly in a higher moral position merely by the fact that we fight to create liberty and self-government, but we also must continue to remove terror-sponsoring, genocidal war-mongers like Saddam to remain moral.

It was immoral for us to be isolationist about the Axis powers, just as pacifism in the face of Islamo-fascism would be immoral now.

Can you argue that you have moral supremacy when you only act when attacked. I am not saying that all that the US does is immoral but it took an attack on your soil for you to act.

Some of the actions by the US soldiers in Iraq have been immoral. I think it is time to question whether these events compromise the moral supremacy of the US in general in Iraq/worldwide. Just one example has emerged this week. The way that the SAS soldier had to leave the British army because of the things he has seen in Iraq:

Mr Griffin said at the weekend that he witnessed dozens of illegal acts by US fighters who viewed Iraqis as "sub-human". He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong.
"I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population."

LINK: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=374282006
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Willoughby
Just one example has emerged this week. The way that the SAS soldier had to leave the British army because of the things he has seen in Iraq:
What's the word he used, "untermenschen", interesting choice of words.

He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The United States does not act upon morals, if this was so then genocides that took place in Somalia for example would have been stopped. But no, we didnt stop that genocide did we? There are a number of others too but I dont remember their names off hand.

The US has no right to tell other countries how they should be run. Just because you think that democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean everyone else in the world does, much less be forced to have that as their own government.

Leave the policing the the police (aka the UN), otherwise we just end up looking like vigilantes and hypocrytes because we only respond to certain situations.

The whole idea of us being morally superior and miltarily superior has alot to do with why alot of people in the world dislike our country. We have no basis to support either of those claims that our morals are better then everyone else much less our military.
 

faminedynasty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
706
Reaction score
224
Location
Sacramento California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SSlightning said:
The whole idea of us being morally superior and miltarily superior has alot to do with why alot of people in the world dislike our country. We have no basis to support either of those claims that our morals are better then everyone else much less our military.
I'm sure we could kill more people than any other nation. We could blow up the world if some half-witted drunken President felt like it. Thus we get to define the morality of the day.
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
faminedynasty said:
I'm sure we could kill more people than any other nation. We could blow up the world if some half-witted drunken President felt like it. Thus we get to define the morality of the day.

So then, since during the early 1940's Germany was the most powerful country, all that they deamed right was really right?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SSlightning said:
The United States does not act upon morals, if this was so then genocides that took place in Somalia for example would have been stopped. But no, we didnt stop that genocide did we? There are a number of others too but I dont remember their names off hand.

The US has no right to tell other countries how they should be run. Just because you think that democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean everyone else in the world does, much less be forced to have that as their own government.

Leave the policing the the police (aka the UN), otherwise we just end up looking like vigilantes and hypocrytes because we only respond to certain situations.

The whole idea of us being morally superior and miltarily superior has alot to do with why alot of people in the world dislike our country. We have no basis to support either of those claims that our morals are better then everyone else much less our military.

lmfao, so when we don't intervene we're supporting tyrants and genocide but when we do intervene we're imperialist.

Look here son we are the only country in the world that acknowledged what is going down in the Sudan as genocide. Collin Powell made a plea infront of the U.N. to stop the genocide in the Sudan but did the U.N. intercede? Fuc/k no they didn't even acknowledge it as genocide because that would have meant they would have to do something about it and what's more, they put the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, because member nations on the Human Rights Commission are exempt from being investigated and this is the fuc/king organization you want to intrust the fate of the world to? The U.N. is now controlled by despots and tyrants. I say we leave the U.N. and take our money with us and we should form a new world organization one which only excepts Democratic nations.

And we are morally superior not one country ever in the history of the world has done more for the betterment of mankind and the world as the United States I challenge you to name one.
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao, so when we don't intervene we're supporting tyrants and genocide but when we do intervene we're imperialist.

Look here son we are the only country in the world that acknowledged what is going down in the Sudan as genocide. Collin Powell made a plea infront of the U.N. to stop the genocide in the Sudan but did the U.N. intercede? Fuc/k no they didn't even acknowledge it as genocide because that would have meant they would have to do something about it and what's more, they put the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, because member nations on the Human Rights Commission are exempt from being investigated and this is the fuc/king organization you want to intrust the fate of the world to? The U.N. is now controlled by despots and tyrants. I say we leave the U.N. and take our money with us and we should form a new world organization one which only excepts Democratic nations.

And we are morally superior not one country ever in the history of the world has done more for the betterment of mankind and the world as the United States I challenge you to name one.

No you idiot, I stated that by only intervening on certain occasions and not others makes us look bad. It would be different if every time something went wrong in the world we went to the rescue, but no that is hardly the case. Just like I pointed out before, the United States has not deamed certain incidents genocide when the UN has, so there both wrong. But at least the UN has a vote of what the world leaders want to accomplish, not just the US saying this is how things are gonna be and everyone better like it or else.

All I want to know is how has the United States bettered mankind? because thats to fague of a statement to argue.

More of this bs "we are the master race and better then everone else" crap. I mean seriously do you know how much you sound like Nazis when you go in declaring we are the superiors and what we say is right because we are capable of enforcing it with sheer force?
 
Top Bottom