Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Indigo_Streetlight Here's another thought, it is really ethical for a lover of liberty to dictate the fate of a foreign people?

Food for thought - I know its not what you meant - but as humans isn't it in our self interest to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue agents who would use them unwisely. Bush W was a complete disaster (there is no arguement there) but isolationism is not the answer - even a 1943 Joe Sixpack could tell you that.

Originally Posted by Msut77 Bullshit.

Tea Party was set up against the established Republicans, though your MSM might not have told you that.

Originally Posted by IRHari They're the base of the Republican party, I definitely don't remember too many tea party protests or even a tea party movement any time when Bush was president. Only exception I see would be Paulistinians, who are mostly consistent, but they definitely don't make up a majority of the tea party.

1. See above.
2. See above, + Paul was the originator of the Tea Party. It came about as a result of his 2008 campaign. If you see what people are actually saying at the protests, you would know that it is a much larger part of the ideals of the Tea Party than CNN/MSNBC/FOX would like you to believe.

Originally Posted by wune Tea Party was set up against the established Republicans, though your MSM might not have told you that.

Bovine Feces.

Originally Posted by wune Tea Party was set up against the established Republicans, though your MSM might not have told you that.

You could say that if they were one homogeneous group with a single message, but they aren't. But for the record, it was because a bunch of conservatives felt they were being over taxed, thus Taxed Enough Already.

Then they hijacked revolutionary history and imagery and tried to act like some modern day colonial patriots.

Originally Posted by Clak You could say that if they were one homogeneous group with a single message, but they aren't. But for the record, it was because a bunch of conservatives felt they were being over taxed, thus Taxed Enough Already. Then they hijacked revolutionary history and imagery and tried to act like some modern day colonial patriots.

You forgot about the conservative think tanks like Americans for Prosperity that were heavily funded by the Koch brothers. Those think tanks set up the organizational logistics to mobilize and give disproportionate media coverage.

For those that don't know, this is why the teabaggers are considered astroturfed because all the resources came from corporate funding and NOT the people themselves. We're not talking about customer service reps for Koch Industries donating money to a think tank, we're talking about the actual Koch's taking tens of millions of dollars, which is so far outside the fundraising purvue of all grassroots programs, that it's farsical that people think that teabaggers get disproportionate coverage on merit alone when there have been larger protests that are actually grassroots that are completely ignored.

Originally Posted by Indigo_Streetlight Hey man, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that it's every American's responsibility to keep other nations from being destabilized? The course of the USA should not be directed by foreign policy, but from within. This means we should only get involved in wars that take up whole continents, not overblown morality actions where a country may have a 0.001% chance of being a threat to us in 100 years. Is that what makes America great, being busybodies who start lopsided pussy-"police actions"?

Hey man, where in the constitution does it say we need social security or any safety net? It doesn't yet we still need it all the same.

But getting, please understand on I am not in a complete opposition to you on most of your points, however I will strongly defend that RP's stance on foreign policy is anything less wishful thinking. Secondly, while you may not see destabilization of the middle east as a big deal, I tend to disagree based on recent attacks these countries make on a yearly basis, although they do not attack the US a lot. I agree that the war is ing atrocious, I disagree that the best way to handle it now that we are knee deep in the shit is just to leave.

As for hellholes with dictatorships and humanitarian issues, do you really think these places are going to get better by us A) Not respecting their national sovereignty, B) Blowing up all their infrastructure, and C) conducting economic warfare against them? If you take Iraq as example, there's more underlying problems than a simple regime or government change will solve; you may in fact need one ethnic group to kill off or dominate another before things can get settled enough for the country to evolve. I mean, in our own country's formation, what would have happened if a British Expeditionary force was in place telling us to play nice with the Indians and the Mexicans? Then we may have never built this "great democracy" or had such a thing as a continental U.S. of A.

Honestly I don't know and we really haven't seen for the full effect of our little foray play out yet. It has worked in the past, or rather partially I would say with South Korea, we did one of our little Democracy runs and it turned out okay for SK I would say.

Here's another thought, it is really ethical for a lover of liberty to dictate the fate of a foreign people? Because so far what I'm seeing is the strategy of a conqueror; we steal their natural resources to preserve our own, with the explicit intent that they'll always be a second-class colony. I say America is better than that; that we shouldn't be wasting time with petty affairs and instead should focus on moving overselves up to the next level.

I really don't like to dabble to much into the ethics of foreign policy, and I will say straight out ethics of foreign policy is something I have never really given much thought to, but I would say, for the most part....... yes it is okay for the US to do exactly that, with a very big pre-requisite.

From the outset it seems that you believe or wish to believe that the US is either liberal or ethical. I am going to make a guess here and say that you believe that this society is one probably based on a basic system of individual right/social safety net/firm justice system. Using that as a general criteria for a liberal or ethical state, and those states that are not those three criteria would be called unethical states. If a state is unethical and does not supply those than I see no reason why we should respect that states rights. Now I know this is over simplifying the situation, but if I kill someone do you still believe I should still have the rights of a person who has not? Of course not, and as suck I would be stripped of most rights and imprisoned. With other nations if they are not "liberal" or "ethical" they do not deserve any respect or toleration from states that are.

That is just a general swing if I take your statement at face value however, based on you previous posts I have read around the site, I suspect you don't think we are either liberal or ethical, so in that case, I would still argue yes, it is okay for the US to do it in certain situations. Mainly based on the assumption that the decision was based on a want to create a better world in some way or to help foster a real liberal or ethical state. Personally I believe that violation of basic human rights can legitimize military intervention especially if non military intervention did not work, an obviously disliked opinion by you.

But beyond all this, I would tentatively agree that that recent wars were started on less than noble grounds, and because of that I am against them. I think for the most part your views are not incompatible with mine on recent middle eastern actions, at least on my end. I just disagree with how we should go forth with other forms of foreign policy and how we should exit from the middle east and future forms of national security policy.

Wrote more than I wanted to here. But thanks for that last part gave me something to think about while grinding in Demon's Souls.

Originally Posted by IRHari The worlds opinion is not a charity bucket you nitwit. All analogies fall apart eventually, that's what makes them analogies. We have to be held to a higher standard. And that means not pointing to Rwanda and China and saying 'see we treat people better than they do!' If you want America to be the king of the shitpile, by all means keep comparing US human rights records to Saudi Arabias or something. Of course we treat people better than they do, but that's nothing to brag about.

Wrong again. In the analogy the worlds opinion would be compared to the peoples opinion criticizing me for stealing, not the charity bucket.

But regardless, I would compare US human rights to any other country, not just the bad ones. But that wasn't the point. The point was the rest of the world hates us for our foreign policy. I say our foreign policy gives a lot of aid and stabilization to the rest of the world, and that it is widely ignored and taken for granted. Sure they can be pissed about what we do in Iraq, or the whole torture debacle and such but to hate us for it? You would think that our actions would bring armageddon, while countries like France, UK, Russia, China etc have in the past, and are currently struggling through the same type issues. And before you comment on how China isn't worth comparing to us, think of how they are one of 5 countries that are permantly on the UN Security Council holding a large amount of power (in the UN anyway).

I wouldn't even say the Korean war turned out well either since we're basically the only thing that keeps the north in check.

Originally Posted by Clak I wouldn't even say the Korean war turned out well either since we're basically the only thing that keeps the north in check.

North Korea is falling apart.

Check out their latest harebrained money-making idea:

North Korean Cruise Seeks Tourists, 8 to a Room

Yeah, but how long do you think it would be before they were fighting again if we left tomorrow? That's my point, our forces being there have been the only thing that kept them from engaging each other again. Because the north knew we'd be involved if it tried anything. So yeah, wouldn't say it ended that well, especially since it didn't really end.

Originally Posted by Clak Then they hijacked revolutionary history and imagery and tried to act like some modern day colonial patriots.

you mean revisioinist history?
nyuck nyuck nyuck

Originally Posted by nasum you mean revisioinist history? nyuck nyuck nyuck

Oh a wise guy eh?

Originally Posted by Clak I wouldn't even say the Korean war turned out well either since we're basically the only thing that keeps the north in check.

It didn't turn out perfect but SK did become a pretty decent place with a decent economy and a way better stance on rights issues than it's partner did. Just comparing the two is night and day, and yes if the US did leave I am not completely sure that it would lead back to war. Especially with some of the leaked cables from last year saying that even China is cutting off NK now. Honestly from what I understand of the current situation it seems China finally blinked and is willing to allow for a US friendly reunified Nk and SK with Seoul being the main anchor for the country. But the SK example is me taking a generally broad whack at foreign policy, a part of politics I am not really interested in nor read about a lot.

I don't what's more amusing. The fact that the OP thinks the military won't find someway to spend a trillion dollars whether we're at war or peace or that the money saved will go to equality measures.

Originally Posted by Knoell But regardless, I would compare US human rights to any other country, not just the bad ones. But that wasn't the point. The point was the rest of the world hates us for our foreign policy. I say our foreign policy gives a lot of aid and stabilization to the rest of the world, and that it is widely ignored and taken for granted. Sure they can be pissed about what we do in Iraq, or the whole torture debacle and such but to hate us for it? You would think that our actions would bring armageddon, while countries like France, UK, Russia, China etc have in the past, and are currently struggling through the same type issues. And before you comment on how China isn't worth comparing to us, think of how they are one of 5 countries that are permantly on the UN Security Council holding a large amount of power (in the UN anyway).

I agree that helping AIDS victims in Africa is a good thing. But that isn't what we're hated for. We're hated for killing civilians with robots. We're hated for throwing people in black holes like Bagram and Guantanamo. We're hated for further destabilizing an entire region.

We're hated for selling Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on Iran. Nah, they hate us because we're Christian...

Originally Posted by IRHari I agree that helping AIDS victims in Africa is a good thing. But that isn't what we're hated for. We're hated for killing civilians with robots. We're hated for throwing people in black holes like Bagram and Guantanamo. We're hated for destabilizing an entire region.

To be fair to the US on this one, it was already destabilized when we got there. We just took British/Russian destabilization and upped the ante.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.

The military content was included to "stimulate resistance against invasion," explained Yaquib Roshan of Nebraska's Afghanistan center. "Even in January, the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it." During the Taliban era, censors purged human images from the books. One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing. Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.

Nothing could have possibly gone wrong with that strategy.

Originally Posted by depascal22 We're hated for selling Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on Iran. Nah, they hate us because we're Christian...

While I see what you are saying, I have no doubt that Christianity is a big component of the hatred.

All of the Abrahamic religions have a massive hardon for each other.