Country-bashing

[DexX]

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.

You mean like Australia and New Zealand going into East Timor and thoroughly pissing off our closest and most powerful neighbour (Indonesia) by helping the East Timorese achieve independence? The Indonesians still haven't forgiven us for that, as we knew they wouldn't, but it was the right and moral thing to do, so we did it.

(Of course, we were guilt-tripped into it by New Zealand, and the pigheaded government of the time was guilt-tripped into it by the party in oppostition, but hey, we got there in the end.)

Plenty of countries intervene in others to help make their lives better, not just the US. Please do a bit of research before making claims to the contrary.

[Boozy]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

[DarthRetard]

Why are we still talking about morals? *snip*
In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

Sometimes, and more often than not, morals matter to some Americans, and I maintain that for us to be moral and stick to the morals and beliefs our country was founded upon, interventionism is not always necessary nor is it always practical.

Blame that Rwanda incident SOLELY on the UNITED NATIONS. You can find the transcript of a Tutsi informant begging Kofi Annan for help, claiming knowledge of the weapons caches, coordinates everything. Kofi Annan refused to do anything. He since mentioned in a Newsweek article/interview that he regrets it, but do not pin that one on the US, as we had just gotten sour from the Somalian Black Hawk Down incident.

I never said that interventionism was ever solely altruistic, but it's completely unfair to say that interventionism doesn't have it's morality to it, in some cases. For instance, if a government is trying to acquire more oil through interventionism, is it not following a moral and ethical guideline by providing certain means for it's people? I do believe a government's obligation is to provide for the welfare and safety of it's people, along with trying to provide a decent quality of living. Is that not moral?

[AFPheonix]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.
Not that personal gain isn't all bad, and it should be a consideration in many interactions we have, but we also have to keep the other party's interest in mind, too. We also have to keep in mind that other cultures don't have the same morals we do. I suppose a better phrase than "moral" should be "upholding of international law".
But.....that won't happen until this admin is gone, seeing as they have a small problem with obeying international law themselves.

[Boozy]

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.

I agree. It should be about doing the right thing, not doing the profitable thing.

[protege]

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!

...and as an American, I appreciate it. But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then. Not only were all those people killed, but we lost our sense of security (remember the anthrax scares?), our economy was wrecked, most of our major airlines filed for bankruptcy, started 2 wars...

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

While we're at it, no country is immune from this sort of thing. Plenty have skeletons in the closets

[Greenday]

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

[AFPheonix]

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

Yes, Congress did ok the invasion, however, they along with the rest of us were given bad intelligence and kind of strong-armed into doing it. Can you imagine what the uproar would have been if they'd said no at that point? Seriously, this was the era of Freedom Fries. People, the media and government were all insane.

[Greenday]

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.

[DarthRetard]

The whole war is wrong. Congress violated the constitution of the United States when they voted to give the president the power to declare war within 48 hours of notification of congress. The Constitution in big bold times new roman print states that only congress maintains the power to declare war.

[Rapscallion]

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.

According to my understanding of SALT (strategic arms limitations treaty), signees to this protocol agreed not to use nukes against countries that had no nukes. Ergo, the USSR vs the US would run the risk of nukes being used. The US vs Iceland would not.

By saying publically that he had nukes, Saddam actually opened up the option for the US to use them and get away with having done so. Granted, there would have been a huge backlash about that, but under the terms of the SALT as I understand it they would have been within their rights.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

I also don't recall him ever actually saying that he did. We thought he was working on DEVELOPING one, but never got it finished. We know for sure he had chemical weapons since he used them on Kurds.
No, they were still trying to track down "yellow cake" and centrifuge parts.

[DarthRetard]

He didnt say that there was ever nukes. In an another unrelated note, it was also well known fact that Saddam Hussein absolutely despised Osama Bin laden and Al Qaeda, so the link of there being a connection was unfortunately minimal.

[Seshat]

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.

Incorrect. I'm rebutting statements that seem to me to be incorrect or based on incomplete information. In my interpretation and intent, I am making criticisms of specific statements made by a single individual. I'm not even criticising you as a person, just a few statements made on a forum on the internet. I don't even know you-the-person!

Making a leap of interpretation from that to a general dislike of an entire nation is really rather surprising.

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.

Shortly before this post, I commented that Australia and other countries have been doing just that. I mean 'taking up some of the burden', not 'sitting back with thumbs up their butt'.

I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks.

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.

I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth.

Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

...and as an American, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy

We understand. I, at least, try to not say anything much about the year or so immediately following, and mistakes-in-retrospect America may have made then. You as a people and as individuals were reacting and acting based on both your emotional state and on the information at hand. How could you have done anything else?

But it's now sufficiently later that while the emotional wounds are still there, and always will be, you (should) no longer have raw emotion driving you.

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then.

No. You now share a dubious honour with the UK (especially Britain), Ireland, Israel, and many others. You're nations which can expect periodic terrorist attacks. It's an unenviable and difficult position to be in.

[Greenday]

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.



Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

It's cool. I just saw it as a bunch of friendly bashing at first and then all of a sudden it got really serious.

And I didn't really mean bashing. It just seemed like you two were really going at each other really rough.