Crispy said: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 said: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.
Vandeervecken said: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 said:So...
Do you have an PhD in Hyperbole, or just an MA?
M14 Shooter said:So...
Do you have an PhD in Hyperbole, or just an MA?
Vandeervecken said: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.
The Mark said:Please explain, as this makes no sense to me.......then again, should it?
Odd. I dont see how anything has changed.tecoyah said: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.
I presume that your explanation for this lies in the two points, below.This was the perception I had for decades, and has changed over the last few years.
-Assuming that you're correct - how does that supprt the notion that we aren't a force for good?-World opinion of us has been soured, and to an extent my own in the process.
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.-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.
If that's the case, you obviously arent using it here.Vandeervecken said:I have an advanced degree in the truth.
Um... when did you present this as a "fact"?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?"
Yes...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 was to invade Afghanistan, among other things.Bush's response? Invade Iraq.
The Mark said:Please explain, as this makes no sense to me.......then again, should it?
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.
tecoyah said: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 said::rofl
Sorry that you can't handle having someone challenge your position.
:2funny:
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.tecoyah said: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.
That's OK - you can run away if you want.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.
M14 Shooter said:Which must explain why you arent willing to try to defend your statements.
Vandeervecken said:LOL, You don't pay much attention to the news do you? Which part would you like explained in detail?
tecoyah said: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.
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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.
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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.
tecoyah said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?