• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

U.S. Moral Obligation to other countries

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Germany didn't ask for help and they were of no concern to us. Why was it ok to go into germany.
What are you referencing here? I sure hope its not World War II, because thats completely irrelevant.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
Pfft. What a drama queen. I'm more worried about Bush doing these things than anyone else.
Well thats just stupid then.

And it's not a drama queen maybe a king but not a queen.

And your reply says to me you have no real answer the question. And all of those scenarios are possible, plausible and not to mention current events.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HTColeman said:
Great comment but if it involves us, then we have no choice but to mitigate, actually resolve, the problem, because it is our problem. But if Country A tries to take over Country B, or Country C is experiencing a genocide, shouldo feel like the responsibility is on us to prevent it from escalading, or is that someone like the UN's job?

The UN doesn't have the teeth to do that job. If it did we wouldn't be doing half the **** we are.

When is intervention ok. I understand people that say stay out, I just want to know how bad or what has to occur before they say ok ... GO IN
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rudy0908 said:
These would fall under "moral obligations to ourselves". Every one of these scenarios involves the US's security and/or its allies. My point was relating to scenarios involving two other nations separate from the US. Obviously, if it relates to our security, we must act accordingly.

So would a major and growing terrorist faction in the middle east effect our security and/or economy?

And if we are to stay out when it is two other nations then I would assume you are not one of these people that are screaming for us to go into Africa to stop the genocide thats going on there?

The Strong Will Survive. But the weak are going to be sucking a **** sandwhich if someone isn't there to help them out.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rudy0908 said:
What are you referencing here? I sure hope its not World War II, because thats completely irrelevant.
Why? They were of no immediate threat to us. They were however a threat to our allies which I refrenced in another sentence. I don't recall any german ships bombarding our coasts or planes bombing our cities
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Well thats just stupid then.

And it's not a drama queen maybe a king but not a queen.

And your reply says to me you have no real answer the question. And all of those scenarios are possible, plausible and not to mention current events.
I wasn't trying to answer your question (whatever it was). I wasn't even trying to completely contradict you. I think you should try ingesting a little bit of humor ever day, otherwise you'll remain the paranoid person that wrote that post about mushroom clouds and stuff.

I believe that the US has some obligation to help other countries, seeing as it is the most powerful nation in the world. One good example would be to go in and fix whatever is happening in Sudan.

On the other hand, I would have to say that I don't think it was a good idea for us to have started a war that spurred on the largest international protest in the history of the world before it had even started.

I think we should be active in hunting and finding terrorists, but Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda. There has been no evidence put forth by the Bush Administration connecting the two. Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD. I'm confused how this war was necessary to prevent the "ICBM's and suitcase nukes" you're worried about. If that was your main concern you'd probably have had your sights set on N. Korea rather than Iraq. They're the dangerous ones.

Finally, it doesn't solve anything to wipe out enemies if, in the process, we only make more of them (ie, the EU). The age of terrorism has just begun, and we need as many friends as we can get, don't you agree?

I'm against isolationism. I don't think we should stay completely out of global affairs, but at the same time, I don't think isolating ourselves from the global community by marching into middle eastern countries is any better.
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
So would a major and growing terrorist faction in the middle east effect our security and/or economy?

And if we are to stay out when it is two other nations then I would assume you are not one of these people that are screaming for us to go into Africa to stop the genocide thats going on there?

The Strong Will Survive. But the weak are going to be sucking a **** sandwhich if someone isn't there to help them out.
Yes it would affect our security and economy. That why I supported the Afganistan invasion, to keep ouselves safe.

And I am one of those people wanting to stop the genocide. They are asking for help and nedding help, so we should help them. I was saying that it is not our job to determine when other nations need help but to supply it if they ask for it. We should keep to ourselves unless asked to do otherwise.
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Why? They were of no immediate threat to us. They were however a threat to our allies which I refrenced in another sentence. I don't recall any german ships bombarding our coasts or planes bombing our cities
Well, lets see how Germany threatened us.
1. They attacked our allies. This threatened our security by trying to knock out those who would help us in an emergency. It threatened our economy by potentially knocking our biggest economic partners.

2. Germany's ally Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. By being an ally, they are essentially condoning this attack.

3. Germany declared war on us.

This sure seems to justify attacking Germany. Both our security and economy were threatened directly by Hitler, and we were right to take action.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
rudy0908 said:
And I am one of those people wanting to stop the genocide. They are asking for help and nedding help, so we should help them. I was saying that it is not our job to determine when other nations need help but to supply it if they ask for it. We should keep to ourselves unless asked to do otherwise.
Right...We should be treated like the world's lapdog....
When everyone else tells us to stay, we'll stay.
When everyone tells us to "go fetch", we'll "go fetch".
:thumbdown
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
Right...We should be treated like the world's lapdog....
When everyone else tells us to stay, we'll stay.
When everyone tells us to "go fetch", we'll "go fetch".
:thumbdown
Why should we interfere in things that don't involve us? And I'm not saying that we should always do what the world tells us too. But I don't see why we should feel morally obligated to stick our noses in any squabble that doesn't threaten our security or economy unless somebody asks for our help. if there was a civil war in Sri Lanka and neither side wanted our involvement, then we shouldn't get involved. Let them settle their own squabbles and then we can have the strength and willpower to help out those wanting our help.
 

DeMaxx

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
rudy0908 said:
Well, lets see how Germany threatened us.
1. They attacked our allies. This threatened our security by trying to knock out those who would help us in an emergency. It threatened our economy by potentially knocking our biggest economic partners.

2. Germany's ally Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. By being an ally, they are essentially condoning this attack.

3. Germany declared war on us.

This sure seems to justify attacking Germany. Both our security and economy were threatened directly by Hitler, and we were right to take action.

Yes we should have entered WWII but i want to get the facts straight here.

1. Germany was attacking us in a manner, they were attacking U.S. shipping going to allies.

2.Japan had signed and agreed to allie with Germany starting a second front against the Russians to have a two fron war with Russia.

3. When Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, being that they were Allies with Germany, and Italy, brought the U.S. in the european theater not only in the Pacific.

DeMaxx
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
rudy0908 said:
Why should we interfere in things that don't involve us? And I'm not saying that we should always do what the world tells us too. But I don't see why we should feel morally obligated to stick our noses in any squabble that doesn't threaten our security or economy unless somebody asks for our help. if there was a civil war in Sri Lanka and neither side wanted our involvement, then we shouldn't get involved. Let them settle their own squabbles and then we can have the strength and willpower to help out those wanting our help.
This is your earlier quote....

rudy0908 said:
I was saying that it is not our job to determine when other nations need help but to supply it if they ask for it.
The implication is that "No" is not an option. If we have to supply when they ask, then we are being used by other countries...OUR interests are not included in any of your statements...

You also have not addressed the repurcussions of helping a country that already has diplomatic strains with another country. If we help country "A", we might strain our relationship with country "B", who has serious issues with country "A". But if we DON'T help country "A", country "B" will continue to have a friendly relationship with us, but now country "A" claims that we have a moral obligation to help them, get P.O.'s when we don't, and we have diplomatic problems with THEM.

See how giving aid isn't just a humanitarian issue? Helping people may cause more problems with other people in the long-term...
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
The implication is that "No" is not an option. If we have to supply when they ask, then we are being used by other countries...OUR interests are not included in any of your statements...
That is not what I meant at all. I didn't mean to imply we were obligated to send aid to anyone who asked for it. I meant that we shouldn't interfere where we weren't asked to. Of course we should consider our interests before acting either way.
cnredd said:
You also have not addressed the repurcussions of helping a country that already has diplomatic strains with another country. If we help country "A", we might strain our relationship with country "B", who has serious issues with country "A". But if we DON'T help country "A", country "B" will continue to have a friendly relationship with us, but now country "A" claims that we have a moral obligation to help them, get P.O.'s when we don't, and we have diplomatic problems with THEM.

See how giving aid isn't just a humanitarian issue? Helping people may cause more problems with other people in the long-term...
I never claimed it was just a humanitarian issue. I know that its more complicated than that. I agree that it is tricky and can cause more problems in the long-term. Obviously each situation would have to be looked at specifically before a decision could be made. But thats why I was keeping my answers general. The case you bring up is not an easy decision, and I hope I haven't implied that providing aid is a black and white issue. All that I've meant to say is that we shouldn't consider interfering unless somebody appeals for us to look at the situation. THEN we consider sending aid and its implications.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
If we help country "A", we might strain our relationship with country "B", who has serious issues with country "A". But if we DON'T help country "A", country "B" will continue to have a friendly relationship with us, but now country "A" claims that we have a moral obligation to help them, get P.O.'s when we don't, and we have diplomatic problems with THEM.
Yes, but what if we invade country "A" without the support of countries "B-Z," and while we slowly build what may eventually be something resembling a democracy in the next 10 years in country "A," it strains our relationships with countries "B-Z" which are all very important allies. Was it worth it to go into country "A" when there was no WMD's or link to Al Qaeda at all? Oops, I've said too much. :doh
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
I wasn't trying to answer your question (whatever it was). I wasn't even trying to completely contradict you. I think you should try ingesting a little bit of humor ever day, otherwise you'll remain the paranoid person that wrote that post about mushroom clouds and stuff.
Paranoid i am not, a realist maybe. And if you think it is not possible for that to happen within our country then you have your head in the sand. But you keep on thinking that everything is just a-okay. We're checking little ole ladies when there getting on trains and planes. We have a border thats more like a revolving door then a border. We have terror cells operating within our own country. Some we know of but some we don't. Up until they flew planes into a couple building we didn't think that could happen either. Not sure why a suitcase nuke is such an immposible idea. I have no real clue if it is possible. But there are other deadly alternatives out there. And there are people willing to use them if need be.


Mikkel said:
I believe that the US has some obligation to help other countries, seeing as it is the most powerful nation in the world. One good example would be to go in and fix whatever is happening in Sudan.
Who chooses were the help goes and where it doesn't?

Mikkel said:
on the other hand, I would have to say that I don't think it was a good idea for us to have started a war that spurred on the largest international protest in the history of the world before it had even started.
Of course the main protesters of this war were countries participating in illegal trading and loans with Iraq. And were worried they would not get there money back. There wasn't an outcry for humanitarian reasons

Mikkel said:
I think we should be active in hunting and finding terrorists, but Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda. There has been no evidence put forth by the Bush Administration connecting the two. Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD. I'm confused how this war was necessary to prevent the "ICBM's and suitcase nukes" you're worried about. If that was your main concern you'd probably have had your sights set on N. Korea rather than Iraq. They're the dangerous ones.
Saddam may not have had direct connection to al-qeada. But he did aide and give refuge to terrorist and terrorist organizations. He allowed training to take place in his country. He himself endorsed suicde bombers, offering to pay the family money for every marytr. Sorry but he was not innocent when it comes to terror or terrorist.


Mikkel said:
Finally, it doesn't solve anything to wipe out enemies if, in the process, we only make more of them (ie, the EU). The age of terrorism has just begun, and we need as many friends as we can get, don't you agree?
Are you telling me we lost the whole EU as friends or allies?
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Paranoid i am not, a realist maybe. And if you think it is not possible for that to happen within our country then you have your head in the sand. But you keep on thinking that everything is just a-okay. We're checking little ole ladies when there getting on trains and planes. We have a border thats more like a revolving door then a border. We have terror cells operating within our own country. Some we know of but some we don't. Up until they flew planes into a couple building we didn't think that could happen either. Not sure why a suitcase nuke is such an immposible idea. I have no real clue if it is possible. But there are other deadly alternatives out there. And there are people willing to use them if need be.

Who chooses were the help goes and where it doesn't?

Of course the main protesters of this war were countries participating in illegal trading and loans with Iraq. And were worried they would not get there money back. There wasn't an outcry for humanitarian reasons

Saddam may not have had direct connection to al-qeada. But he did aide and give refuge to terrorist and terrorist organizations. He allowed training to take place in his country. He himself endorsed suicde bombers, offering to pay the family money for every marytr. Sorry but he was not innocent when it comes to terror or terrorist.

Are you telling me we lost the whole EU as friends or allies?
You certainly are living in a perpetual state of fear. You seem to assume that because I don't think we should invade a country every time we get the chance that I don't think National Security is important. Of course it's important, but going into Iraq isn't going to solve the problem. You're fabricating solutions in your mind because you don't know what the real solution is yet. No one does.

Your comment about who chooses where we go and where we don't is an interesting one. Well, I would have to say (and you aren't going to like it) that getting support from the international community would be a good start. At the time we invaded Iraq, it was probably 6th on the list of countries that was posing the biggest threat to us, and we didn't have international support.

The protests I was refferring to are not 'national' protests. I'm not saying 'the french protested' (which they did). I'm saying that millions of people across the globe, from america (including me), to spain, to italy, to france, to england, and so on went to their captiols and protested the policy that bush was taking. 50% of Americans were against the war before it started. I'm not talking about people with 'interests' in Iraq. I'm talking about people who recognized that this invasion was detrimental to our global balance and got up and spoke out about it.

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy. He deserved what he got (personally), but when it comes to your fear of a nuclear holocaust, deposing him was insignificant compared to what else has been going on around the world.

Finally, we haven't lost the entire EU as our allies, but there is still a lot of bitterness there. Isolating ourselves from the European community is just stupid and hard-headed. I think you'll find that we need their help sooner than you think, and if we don't start respecting their voices, we aren't going to get it.

Bush's tactics of swift and exacting revenge, along with public diversion by starting a war will not solve any problems. Your fear may be stronger than mine, and perhaps more accurate. That same fear, however, is making you blind and naive about the realities of the world. Ultimately, creating authoritarian control by invading countries that are easily defeated and villainized will not stop terrorists. If you'd just sit down and think about it, you'd realize this too.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
You certainly are living in a perpetual state of fear. You seem to assume that because I don't think we should invade a country every time we get the chance that I don't think National Security is important. Of course it's important, but going into Iraq isn't going to solve the problem. You're fabricating solutions in your mind because you don't know what the real solution is yet. No one does.

Your comment about who chooses where we go and where we don't is an interesting one. Well, I would have to say (and you aren't going to like it) that getting support from the international community would be a good start. At the time we invaded Iraq, it was probably 6th on the list of countries that was posing the biggest threat to us, and we didn't have international support.

The protests I was refferring to are not 'national' protests. I'm not saying 'the french protested' (which they did). I'm saying that millions of people across the globe, from america (including me), to spain, to italy, to france, to england, and so on went to their captiols and protested the policy that bush was taking. 50% of Americans were against the war before it started. I'm not talking about people with 'interests' in Iraq. I'm talking about people who recognized that this invasion was detrimental to our global balance and got up and spoke out about it.

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy. He deserved what he got (personally), but when it comes to your fear of a nuclear holocaust, deposing him was insignificant compared to what else has been going on around the world.

Finally, we haven't lost the entire EU as our allies, but there is still a lot of bitterness there. Isolating ourselves from the European community is just stupid and hard-headed. I think you'll find that we need their help sooner than you think, and if we don't start respecting their voices, we aren't going to get it.

Bush's tactics of swift and exacting revenge, along with public diversion by starting a war will not solve any problems. Your fear may be stronger than mine, and perhaps more accurate. That same fear, however, is making you blind and naive about the realities of the world. Ultimately, creating authoritarian control by invading countries that are easily defeated and villainized will not stop terrorists. If you'd just sit down and think about it, you'd realize this too.
Actually approval numbers at the start of iraq were in the 60's I believe. And as soon as people start dying people start rethinking.

The international community you speak of france germany and russian to start. There people protested there governments however declined there support for fear of defaulting loans from iraq, that and some questionable trading gong on. France is going to complain no matter what so they don't even matter or count. Germany and russia, if not caught with there hand in the cookie jar. (as we all have at one time or another). Spain ran away as soon as possible.Showing the terrorist that suicide bombings and terror really do work.

The fact is I work in the 5th largest city in the country on the14th floor of a skyscraper. And I don't think twice about what might happen or how it might happen. To do that is to let these animals win. But it doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Actually approval numbers at the start of iraq were in the 60's I believe. And as soon as people start dying people start rethinking.

The international community you speak of france germany and russian to start. There people protested there governments however declined there support for fear of defaulting loans from iraq, that and some questionable trading gong on. France is going to complain no matter what so they don't even matter or count. Germany and russia, if not caught with there hand in the cookie jar. (as we all have at one time or another). Spain ran away as soon as possible.Showing the terrorist that suicide bombings and terror really do work.

The fact is I work in the 5th largest city in the country on the14th floor of a skyscraper. And I don't think twice about what might happen or how it might happen. To do that is to let these animals win. But it doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen.
I work in the tallest skyscraper in cleveland, so you don't have that over me. I'm not saying that terrorism can't or won't happen. I'm saying that invading Iraq doesn't solve the problem, it only complicates it unnecessarily.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
I work in the tallest skyscraper in cleveland, so you don't have that over me. I'm not saying that terrorism can't or won't happen. I'm saying that invading Iraq doesn't solve the problem, it only complicates it unnecessarily.
And i'm saying that Iraq was a refuge for terrorist. Who could go to recieve training and aid
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
and I'm saying it wasn't like that till we got there.
And I am saying your wrong, Saddam himself offered $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Training and refuge were givien to terrorist within the borders of Iraq before the war.
 
Top Bottom