Is the US a force for good in the world? (1 Viewer)

[Crispy]

I've read so many attacks and defenses of US foreign policy on this site, and every issue that seems to come up regarding the US and the world boils down to whether the US is force for good or not.

Are we (as the USA) acting in the best interest of the world or are we acting in the best interests of ourselves without regard to the ramifications of other poeples in the world?

 

[Kandahar]

I've read so many attacks and defenses of US foreign policy on this site, and every issue that seems to come up regarding the US and the world boils down to whether the US is force for good or not.

Are we (as the USA) acting in the best interest of the world or are we acting in the best interests of ourselves without regard to the ramifications of other poeples in the world?

We're acting in the best interests of ourselves (and there's nothing wrong with that). With that said, we're also usually a force for good, and our interests usually coincide with the best interests of the world.

 

[GarzaUK]

mod mode

POLL ADDED

 

[Crispy]

We're acting in the best interests of ourselves (and there's nothing wrong with that). With that said, we're also usually a force for good, and our interests usually coincide with the best interests of the world.

Personally, I believe despite our mistakes, we've always been a world power that endeavored to spread peace, equality and prosperity in the world.

 

[Vandeervecken]

For most of the last century we were a force for good. This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state that invades other nations for no good reason. Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state that invades other nations for no good reason. Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

So...
Do you have an PhD in Hyperbole, or just an MA?

 

[Vandeervecken]

So...
Do you have an PhD in Hyperbole, or just an MA?

I have an advanced degree in the truth.

I note you cannot refute the fact that our current administration has turned us into a torture state.

Nor that the Saudis Royal House and the Bush Family are so commingled in business that when they tell him to jump his only response can be, "How high?"

The vast majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. The attack was planned by a Saudi. The people who attacked us came to us from Saudi Arabia. The Whabbist Philosophy that fuels Al-Qaeda is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. The funds for the attacks came from the Saudis, large chunks of it brought into the US by a Princes of the Royal House.

Bush's response? Invade Iraq.

 

[tecoyah]

So...
Do you have an PhD in Hyperbole, or just an MA?

Guess I will use my degree in Hyperbolistics as well then.

Several years ago...after Bosnia, I was asked this question at a get together I attended. After some serious debate I came to the conclusion that we were, indeed primarily a force for relative good, as we acted only when dire need created a situation which warranted intervention. Sadly....today I had to say...."Depends", as things have changed dramatically in our foreign policy.
In the past the United States acted as a world police force in effect. Partially as a shadow hanging over the heads of those who would commit atrocity, and partially as a country willing to protect its interests. This was the perception I had for decades, and has changed over the last few years. World opinion of us has been soured, and to an extent my own in the process. Though I understand many do not care what the rest of the world thinks of our country, I see this as extremely shortsighted...and dangerous.
We seem to have abandoned even the illusion of a diplomatic foreign policy, and instead decided on military intimidation as our primary means of international communication. Many of my friends from overseas have stated as much....and it is a pity.
As of right now.....I am unsure of our position in this world....and I find it....upsetting.

 

[The Mark]

For most of the last century we were a force for good. This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state that invades other nations for no good reason. Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

Please explain, as this makes no sense to me.......then again, should it?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Please explain, as this makes no sense to me.......then again, should it?

LOL, You don't pay much attention to the news do you? Which part would you like explained in detail?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the past the United States acted as a world police force in effect. Partially as a shadow hanging over the heads of those who would commit atrocity, and partially as a country willing to protect its interests.

Odd. I dont see how anything has changed.

This was the perception I had for decades, and has changed over the last few years.

I presume that your explanation for this lies in the two points, below.

-World opinion of us has been soured, and to an extent my own in the process.

-Assuming that you're correct - how does that supprt the notion that we aren't a force for good?
-Doesn't your point necessitate that the "world" is a competent and impartial judge of what's "good" in the world?
-Isn't it also possible that while they might be mad at us for whatever, they still might see us as a force for good?

For this point to mean anything, you have to draw the necessary relationship between our "fall" in "world opinion" to the idea that we aren't a force for good.

-We seem to have abandoned even the illusion of a diplomatic foreign policy, and instead decided on military intimidation as our primary means of international communication.

This is simple, bigoted rhetoric. There has not been a single instance where were have not exhausted our diplomatic efforts before we took military action. If you were right, we'd be in Iran right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have an advanced degree in the truth.

If that's the case, you obviously arent using it here.

I note you cannot refute the fact that our current administration has turned us into a torture state.

Um... when did you present this as a "fact"?

Nor that the Saudis Royal House and the Bush Family are so commingled in business that when they tell him to jump his only response can be, "How high?"

Um... when did you present this as a "fact"?

The vast majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. The attack was planned by a Saudi. The people who attacked us came to us from Saudi Arabia. The Whabbist Philosophy that fuels Al-Qaeda is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. The funds for the attacks came from the Saudis, large chunks of it brought into the US by a Princes of the Royal House.

Yes...
Now, draw the necessary relationship between all that and an official position of the Saudi government.

You're arguing that because terrorists who were Saudi nationals attacked us, we were attacked by the state of Sauti Arabia. My 6yr old can see the fallacy in that.

Bush's response? Invade Iraq.

Bush's response was to invade Afghanistan, among other things.
The invasion of Iraq was not a response specific to 9/11

 

[tecoyah]

Please explain, as this makes no sense to me.......then again, should it?

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
For most of the last century we were a force for good. This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state

http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm

that invades other nations for no good reason.

"Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration’s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown—an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention—conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war’s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention."

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030113/


As Requested

 

[M14 Shooter]

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

Wait....
Because the administration used 'humanitatian intervention' as one of the three basic arguments for invading Iraq, the humanitarian argument was not enough to justify the invasion?

In 1999, we went to war to oust Slobodon Milosovic of Serbia.
If that war was a jusitfied "humanitarian intervention", then how could Iraq not be also justified as same?

 

[tecoyah]

I'm sorry M-14 shooter....I no longer consider debate with you a worthwhile use of time....so....you are right, I am wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry M-14 shooter....I no longer consider debate with you a worthwhile use of time....so....you are right, I am wrong.

:rofl

Sorry that you can't handle having someone challenge your position.

:2funny:

 

[tecoyah]

:rofl

Sorry that you can't handle having someone challenge your position.

:2funny:

As is so painfully obvious when my post history is reviewed. Whereas....virtually every freakin' thing you say is poison to the above 80 IQ set.

At this point I would like to do that "get in the last word" thing....but what I would say belongs in the basement.....as do you.


Done

 

[M14 Shooter]

As is so painfully obvious when my post history is reviewed. Whereas....virtually every freakin' thing you say is poison to the above 80 IQ set.

Which must explain why you arent willing to try to defend your statements -- you being below that point oin the scale, you cannot comprehend what I post.

At this point I would like to do that "get in the last word" thing....but what I would say belongs in the basement.....as do you.

That's OK - you can run away if you want.

 

[vergiss]

Which must explain why you arent willing to try to defend your statements.

Ever tried debating with Forrest Gump?

 

[The Mark]

LOL, You don't pay much attention to the news do you? Which part would you like explained in detail?

Actually, I do pay attention to the news.

However, I have seen nothing to make me think that the US is a "stinking torture state"

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Guess I will use my degree in Hyperbolistics as well then.

Several years ago...after Bosnia, I was asked this question at a get together I attended. After some serious debate I came to the conclusion that we were, indeed primarily a force for relative good, as we acted only when dire need created a situation which warranted intervention. Sadly....today I had to say...."Depends", as things have changed dramatically in our foreign policy.
In the past the United States acted as a world police force in effect. Partially as a shadow hanging over the heads of those who would commit atrocity, and partially as a country willing to protect its interests. This was the perception I had for decades, and has changed over the last few years. World opinion of us has been soured, and to an extent my own in the process. Though I understand many do not care what the rest of the world thinks of our country, I see this as extremely shortsighted...and dangerous.
We seem to have abandoned even the illusion of a diplomatic foreign policy, and instead decided on military intimidation as our primary means of international communication. Many of my friends from overseas have stated as much....and it is a pity.
As of right now.....I am unsure of our position in this world....and I find it....upsetting.

So basically your for interventionalist war unless a Republican is in office?

Cuz you know that Saddam Hussein perpetrated genocide on a scale far surpassing that of Milosevich.

Ohhh, the liberal hypocricy knows no bounds.

 

[tecoyah]

So basically your for interventionalist war unless a Republican is in office?

Cuz you know that Saddam Hussein perpetrated genocide on a scale far surpassing that of Milosevich.

Ohhh, the liberal hypocricy knows no bounds.

Perhaps I should clarify my...uh..."Liberal" statement. The whole reason it was debated at this get together was my feeling we were overstepping the line in the sand as far as Bosnia. It was only after discussion with a few more intellegent friends (I was a republican at the time, and never much cared for Clinton) that I gained a more in depth understanding of the reasoning behind our intervention.
You can label me whatever you want....as you seem to call virtually anything you disagree with Liberal, I will happily accept the name for the moment. My comments had very little to do with the war in Iraq, as you will note if you bother to re-read the post, but rather with the policy direction our country has taken. To be honest I expected as much from M14....but had a higher opinion of you....not that this is important.
I do not "Agree" with any war whatsoever....but I do accept the need to kill in extreme circumstance. I simply think we have significantly lowered the bar on what constitutes....extreme.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So basically your for interventionalist war unless a Republican is in office?
Cuz you know that Saddam Hussein perpetrated genocide on a scale far surpassing that of Milosevich.

That's right.
If you approved of rhe war in Kosovo, then there's no way you can disapprove of the war in Iraq and retain any credibility.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Perhaps I should clarify my...uh..."Liberal" statement. The whole reason it was debated at this get together was my feeling we were overstepping the line in the sand as far as Bosnia. It was only after discussion with a few more intellegent friends (I was a republican at the time, and never much cared for Clinton) that I gained a more in depth understanding of the reasoning behind our intervention.
You can label me whatever you want....as you seem to call virtually anything you disagree with Liberal, I will happily accept the name for the moment. My comments had very little to do with the war in Iraq, as you will note if you bother to re-read the post, but rather with the policy direction our country has taken. To be honest I expected as much from M14....but had a higher opinion of you....not that this is important.
I do not "Agree" with any war whatsoever....but I do accept the need to kill in extreme circumstance. I simply think we have significantly lowered the bar on what constitutes....extreme.

Spin it all you want fact of the matter is that you were for the interventionalist war on Kosovo where we had absolutely no national interests what so ever and your support came only on the basis of the genocide, yet when confronted with the attrocities of the Saddam regime which dwarf that of the crimes perpetrated by Milosovich, it's a non-issue. :roll:

Can you say hypocricy kids? I knew that you could.

 

[Radical Ron]

I disagree. The United States (like many industrialized nations) thinks for itself. If we are a force for good, why didn't we help the people of Rwanda?! Not enough money involved? We knew and did nothing. We, I think are like all people. We aren't good because we are American, we are good because of those we have learned from.