Country-bashing

[Greenday]

I'm with DarthRetard on the UN and NATO. They've become basically as useless as the League of Nations. It's all well and good to tell people what they can and cannot do. But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

[protege]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

That's why I don't like the UN. Oh, and they like to tie things up with red tape, apparently. I'm referring to the 1990-99 Yugoslavia civil war. By the time they finally got involved, it was a full-blown war...and some serious atrocities had already been done.

[DarthRetard]

I'm not saying re-adpot the Monroe Doctrine. If you read my whole post, you'd get that what I said was that Americans have equated the idea of being moral with being interventionist. Yes, sometimes interventionism is good (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, etc.). However, that same idea that it's our job to do everything because we're "right" or it's the "right thing to do" is what's made us reviled in some parts of the globe. I bought the book on Osama Bin Laden's speeches and statements. His first grievance against us as a cause for 9/11 (and im not saying we caused it, calm the fuck down :-D) was our defiling muslim soil by putting US Bases over there. Iraq's borders were not drawn by them. 1948 created israel, but it also upended an entire people who now have no government. It's not just the US, the West (yes canada, you're included too) has had a policy of intervening much too often and to little avail in the Middle East (crusades anybody? look up Saladin and his relationship with good ole King Richard the Lionhearted). The fact is, how would we like it if China put bases in Iowa? Or if Russia put missiles in Cuba? (That sounds kind of familiar.....) During the Cuban missile crisis all you heard about was Russian missiles near Cuba, but did you know anything about the US missile installations in turkey? Russia was merely retaliating under a Mutual Assured Destruction philosophy. In short, the point is, It's not our job, nor should it be our job, we need to pick our battles a little wiser. So vote for Ron Paul, because everything I've been talking about, is what that man has been fighting for for 30 years now, and he's the only candidate who will stick to it.

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

[Seshat]

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it.

Oooookay.

Please re-read (or read for the first time) post 26 of this thread.

I only talk about one country, because that's the country I'm an expert in. Our members in other first world countries can doubtless provide examples of 'meeting you halfway' - or going further than the US does.

If you're worried about numbers - for example, that the US sends a great many more troops than Australia does - read the CIA world factbook. Look at things like population figures and GNP. Continuing with the same example, Australia has a population roughly equivalent to New York City. Not state, city. We can't match the US in numbers (or dollars!).

As for 'We're not your enemy' - well, the US government sure acted like anyone who didn't get into Iraq with them after 9/11 was an enemy. Your government seriously pissed off a lot of residents of friendly nations. And not all of our citizens are intelligent and fair-minded enough to separate 'government' from 'people'.

Even nations who did go and help got aggressive and unfriendly behaviour from your government. We typically kept our mouths shut at the time because hey, you'd just received a severe shock, we understood. But some of your people still act like we never did - or do - anything to help! Newsflash: not true!

As for "If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission." The League of Nations, Australia, and the UN have overseen the continuing development of Papua New Guinea as a nation. Australia and the UN are working on East Timor.

I believe you may well be right - if you stick to the technicality of 'peacekeeping mission' and define 'success' within a scope of less than several decades. But both Papua New Guinea and East Timor are nations which have formed with UN (and League of Nations) assistance, have a mentor first world nation, and are on the way to becoming successful, independent nations.

I have spoken with members of the Australian military who have been posted to various locations in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans, and South-East Asia. Some of their missions were UN-sponsored, some were nominally 'peacekeeping'. Some were soldiers doing hard police work like dealing with drug or sex trafficking. Some were emergency assistance after natural disasters. They tell me that New Zealand forces often go to the same places as Australian forces, helping out with the same things: so that's two countries doing their share.

There seems to be a common perception among Americans that they're the only people who ever go out of their own country to help others. That perception is very, very wrong.

[Seshat]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

Actually, the UN doesn't have any teeth. All it can do is ask the member nations to do stuff - it has no armies of its own, no citizenry to draw from, and no land to place training bases for its hypothetical citizens.

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

[DarthRetard]

In response to what you said Seshat, I understand that a great many nations did help us in our endeavors in Afghanistan, especially. My cousin served with Canadian special forces in several missions, and had nothing but praise for their tenacity and fervor for their job. Australia also has more respect from me than any other nation in this world because Australia sticks to their guns, doesnt back down, and frankly, is an all-around great nation from what I gather. Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones, and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont. If the US does adopt a more relaxed interventionist policy (i.e. not threatening everything in sight like a shi tzu in heat), and something happens, I know for damned well certain that the UN Security Council nations will be the first to say "I told you so" and place blame on US foreign policy. The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying. The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

[Boozy]

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

To address just a few:

China: Their economy is based on paying their workers very little money to make a lot of plastic crap for export. I guess that's one way to go.

Britain: Holy hell, the biggest imperialistic power of all-time. No lack of military or economic intervention there.

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.

[Greenday]

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

In all seriousness, the UN is something that looks good on paper, but really, is just a group of people thinking of what the world SHOULD be like. That's all they do. It's all well and good to say that everyone should work towards a certain cause, but every nation has their own problems to deal with as it is.

[DarthRetard]

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.

First off, there are plenty of stable economies out there that aren't dependant on a militaristic interventionist policy. How much do you actually know about Ron Paul? I don't simply campaing for him, I, in all honesty, am one of the higher ups in the campaign, and I've met the man on several occasions now. Clinton managed minimal interventionism, with some still going on, and still managed to balance our budget and make our economy stronger. However, he fucked us by reducing our military's strength by 30%. It's not that I don't fully believe in some interventionism, and neither does Ron Paul, he just doesn't think every country's problem requires our "assistance". Iraq took a step backwards after we intervened. Vietnam is just now finally getting it's legs underneath it. Interventionism requires a military obligation that we can't fulfill at our current strength right now. Spending MORE money to accomplish a task that should never have been set out will only damage our economy further by decreasing citizen's confidence in government. The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world. We need to save face and gain the confidence of our allies again. We need to withdraw from NATO, for it simply is now just a military alliance on paper that could, in the future draw us into a war. Jefferson once said, in his inaugural address "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

It's treaties like the Rio Treaty, NATO, NAFTA and the WTO that will bring our nation down, because we've put the fate of our nation's economy and safety in the hands of people who we dont necessarily know share the same desire for us to succeed.

[DexX]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement...

As for the UN, well, what can it do? Every time it tries to do the right thing, one member country will veto it (and that member country has often been the USA), giving it no power. But then, if we gave the UN an army, some real teeth to enforce its decisions, then suddenly we'd have this terrifying central world government that would probably only last a few years before Geneva copped a nuke.

The UN can only work based on willing cooperation. Saying "Make me!" is not willing cooperation.

[Boozy]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement...

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me.

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

[Seshat]

Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

Thank you for the clarification. What I read in those earlier posts was not what your clarification says.

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones

What do you expect from an organisation that is essentially a democracy?

and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont.

That's the curse of being moral and ethical.

The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying.

As I understand it, France at the time was saying 'it's a mistake' and choosing to act according to their morals and ethics. That's one time when they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did, they would be doing something they believed would be wrong. If they didn't, the only remaining world superpower would be pissed off at them. And they couldn't be sure their intelligence was right, any more than the US could.

If you want credit for your own moral stands - and yes, I do give your country credit for them - then give France credit for their moral stand in the 9/11 aftermath. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

Yes, I think that's probably about right. It matches with my assessment.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world.

Read that sentence, think about it, decide whether it's true or not, and then think about what sorts of mistakes you might be making because of it. And how you would feel, if your neighbour acted towards you as if he was moral, and you were not.

[DarthRetard]

Seshat, even now, with some of the statements in your reply, you're treating me with an attitude that says to me that I'm still being looked down upon because I'm american. No, I will not give the French the same moral standing, and here's why:

It's quite known that they were selling weapons to Iraq, and had monetary influences in Iraq. France's government under Chirac was more two-timing than Cruella DeVille in a poker game. "Sure USA, we're really upset about your loss and everything, and wanna do everything to help, but....uhh.....Hey look over there!"

Before you start on it, I know for a fact that America has done some shady bullshit in the past. I know it, and I hate it. I hate the fact that Reagan, one of the president's I'm most fond of, is responsible for Bin Laden's rise to power. So here I am, acknowledging it, and trying to undo what my country has screwed up. I know we're dumbasses sometimes. I know. I admit it. I'm no supporter of the current administration policies, either.

However, I think that the impression a lot of citizens in other nations get from us, is from our media (not just news, but tv as well) and based on that, I could understand how they think we're idiots. I mean come on, we let Paris Hilton produce an album? Credibility: 0. I formally apologize for that too.

America needs to be given a little more credit than it gets though, because to be fucking honest, we've been thrown into a major role from the beginning of this country's history. The American Revolution led to revolutions in Haiti, France, and set an example that would be used for years to come. We didn't ask for this role, and we're doing the best we can with it. If another country thinks they can do it better, then they can either take some of the burden, and help us out, or they can sit back with their thumbs up their arses and wonder what the hell we're doing.

[Greenday]

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

This whole thread was based on friendly country bashing. I can't help it that you guys went off on a tangent and actually started bashing each other's countries. I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks. I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth. You want me to take country bashing seriously? Fine.

I'm still siding with Darth. America may not be doing the best things when dealing with world affairs, but at least America tries to make the world a better place. There are a lot of countries sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Sure, some countries are helping. I applaud them. But if America didn't get involved first, would any of the other countries have stepped in at all? Sometimes, I really doubt it.

America has its fair share of morons. When Canada or GB ups their populations to the size of the US (well, GB won't, it's just too small to support that many people), they'll have just as many stupid people too. The US just has a population that is MUCH larger and as such, there is more stupidity to be seen.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me.

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

I know, I come back after a loverly 10 hour shift, and see that the person quoting me for rebuttal is well....restating what I already said?
Alrighty then.

I have to say, Ron Paul supporters give Obama supporters a run for their money as far as religious fervor goes. Darth hasn't gone all bullet point presentation like most of the rest do. Yet.

I think America gets plenty of credit for the stuff we do. However, we shouldn't be doing stuff just to earn praise, we should do things because it makes the world a better place ultimately. Yeah, it's nice and all now and again to be appreciated, but after the last few decades we've spent crapping all over quite a few key places, we shouldn't really be surprised that there's going to be some blowback. That's how it is when we deal with other sovereign nations with their own voices. They aren't going to be yes-men, nor should we expect them to be. Keeps us honest.