should we rush about "building nations" or should we straighten ourselves out first?
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
The problem is that a "better world" is a very subjective thing and doesn't always mean the same to people outside of America.
Not all of it, but the majority of our foreign policy centers on what's best for America, not the world. Sometimes the two fall right in line but when they don't the needs of our nation are put before the needs of another all in the name of making "a better world". I have no problem with securing our own interests but not when it's done under the guise of helping others that don't want our interference in their affairs.
About to turn 23.
Believe me, I realize my youth and inexperience shapes my view of the world. Discussing my points of view with those who don't agree is the best way to learn, in my opinion. Sometimes it strengthens my opinions, sometimes it alters them slightly, other times it changes my mind completely. That's the whole point of discussion and debate, isn't it? I guess Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uruguay, Cuba, Nicaragua, Columbia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile are technically "allies", right? Imperialism is the act of a nation imposing its' beliefs and ways of life on another culture or society. Regardless of what people here think is the "right thing to do" if it doesn't jive with what the people that are having our will forced upon them it is not justified.
"A threat to the West" I love that phrase because it implies that "the West" is all that matters. Who cares about the will of a soveriegn nation when needs of "the West" are far more important? Morality is and has always been subjective. What you find right others may not. Forcing the will of one nation on another is not justified, it's not "national defense", it's not protection and it's not making the world a better place.
It is no different than you going to your neighbor and demanding that you dictate how he raises his child because you feel he should be spanked instead of being put in time out. It doesn't matter which method is better because it's not your child. Maybe one day in the future that child may grow up to steal your car or beat up your kid but until he does you are not defending yourself so much as launching a pre-emptive strike.
Who's advocating that tyrants have rights? But again, none of what you said changes the fact that nation building is much like the example I gave. And it can't be denied that if the rest of the world decided that our ownership of firearms or our massive pollution numbers were enough to deem that the US needs a little "nation building" everyone here would be up in arms over it. Gassing Kurds and killing dissidents is that much worse than producing more pollution than most other nations put together which goes well toward killing people in the future?
We have weapons of mass destruction, why wouldn't the EU be justified in forcing us to disarm?
And we never shall. The only thing we can do is try to better ourselves, help those in need if we are able and willing to do so, and allow others to enjoy the same freedoms we ourselves demand. But part of that freedom is choice and if other people choose to live a certain way it is equally as wrong for us to make them choose a different government or economy simply because we, people who don't even live in those nations, decide that it's not cool.
The part that baffles me is how so many Americans can believe that America's needs are more important than the rest of the world yet are shocked when people of other nations dare to feel the same. America is not the center of the universe - I'm afraid that many people go far beyond patriotism and into nationalism.
On a forum so dedicated to the second amendment one would think that the word "right" would be used in a more appropriate context.
To anyone familiar with open debate that phrase is most certainly not a rebuttal. He was willing to ask questions, challenge my opinions with his own, and engage in healthy conversation. If you could do the same that'd be awesome.
Nation building must come from within. Otherwise it's simply intervention and military occupation.
I wonder how we would react if a powerful Muslim nation invaded our country to liberate us from 'the decadence of our immoral western democracy' and build our nation into a proper Muslim state.
Muslim clerics might call it 'nation building' but something tells me we would probably call it something else.
I wonder how we would react if a powerful Muslim nation invaded our country to liberate us from 'the decadence of our immoral western democracy' and build our nation into a proper Muslim state.
Muslim clerics might call it 'nation building' but something tells me we would probably call it something else.
DO not think for a second that if we weren't as powerful as we are that they wouldn't try. And I doubt they would do anything to avoid needless casualties - it is their goal to kill us all after all. I could not see them bombing enemy combatants at the same time they drop food to refugees. They have already shown their exhaltation when murdering woman, children, ANYone. Perhaps that is a difference between us and them that those on the left do not see, or do not believe, or just choose to forget.
Was it up to us to decide that Afghanistan was better off under Taliban rule? No it wasn't - right up to the moment the terrorists they harbored and supported murdered 3000 US citizens. Is it Isreal's, or the US's right to impose our will on Iran? NO it isn't - right up to the point they state they want nuclear weapons AND they state Isreal should be blown off the map. [Of course if Carter had supported the Shah instead of letting him flounder - we wouldn't haver to worry at all]. Is it up to the US to decide if S. Vietnam would have been better off under Communism? Yes - they wanted our involvement, and when Nixon was forced to pull out before the South was stable, the North took over and murdered millions. Was it up to the US, England or anyone else with balls to stand up to Hitler some time before he started a war that killed 55 MILLION people? Yes - I think it was. I bet 6 million Jews wish we had. I bet 25 million Russians wished they had thought it out better too. Should we have gotten further involved in China before the Japanese took them over? Probably, then maybe we wouldn't have had to wait for thousands of Americans to die @Pearl Harbor in that wake up call, in the Philipines, at Wake Island etc., and in fighting our way back across the Pacific. [which also shows why we MUST have the strongest military, and why we MUST win - despite what that idiot doctor from Vermont says, so Americans don't die needlessly with inferior equipment]. S Korea? Philipines? Afghanistan? Kuwiat? Taiwan? Germany? France? Japan? Ex-Soviet states? Obviously success stories of allies better off because of our getting involved.
There are plenty of instances where we have seen that if we choose NOT to get involved sooner, we will pay a higher price later. Those making the decisions have to weigh the cost of doing something vs. the costs of doing nothing, if getting involved is in our best interests, or if it is important enough a matter of doing the right thing. The UN served as the mediator roll for a long time before it became corrupt and ineffective. After 9-11, it became just a bit too hard to "wait and see if they are serious when they say they want to murder us all". We know what is at stake when an enemy is not taken seriously, and when nothing is done. From now on we can/should leave nothing to chance.
Was it up to us to decide that Afghanistan was better off under Taliban rule? No it wasn't - right up to the moment the terrorists they harbored and supported murdered 3000 US citizens. Is it Isreal's, or the US's right to impose our will on Iran? NO it isn't - right up to the point they state they want nuclear weapons AND they state Isreal should be blown off the map. [Of course if Carter had supported the Shah instead of letting him flounder - we wouldn't haver to worry at all]. Is it up to the US to decide if S. Vietnam would have been better off under Communism? Yes - they wanted our involvement, and when Nixon was forced to pull out before the South was stable, the North took over and murdered millions. Was it up to the US, England or anyone else with balls to stand up to Hitler some time before he started a war that killed 55 MILLION people? Yes - I think it was. I bet 6 million Jews wish we had. I bet 25 million Russians wished they had thought it out better too. Should we have gotten further involved in China before the Japanese took them over? Probably, then maybe we wouldn't have had to wait for thousands of Americans to die @Pearl Harbor in that wake up call, in the Philipines, at Wake Island etc., and in fighting our way back across the Pacific. [which also shows why we MUST have the strongest military, and why we MUST win - despite what that idiot doctor from Vermont says, so Americans don't die needlessly with inferior equipment]. S Korea? Philipines? Afghanistan? Kuwiat? Taiwan? Germany? France? Japan? Ex-Soviet states? Obviously success stories of allies better off because of our getting involved.
There are plenty of instances where we have seen that if we choose NOT to get involved sooner, we will pay a higher price later. Those making the decisions have to weigh the cost of doing something vs. the costs of doing nothing, if getting involved is in our best interests, or if it is important enough a matter of doing the right thing. The UN served as the mediator roll for a long time before it became corrupt and ineffective. After 9-11, it became just a bit too hard to "wait and see if they are serious when they say they want to murder us all". We know what is at stake when an enemy is not taken seriously, and when nothing is done. From now on we can/should leave nothing to chance.
Last edited:
Yep it is. At risk of sounding condescending.. You are right where you should be politically. If you are willing to talk about your convictions as you do, and are willing to consider other views, you are ahead of the curve. I believe the main difference between your view on this matter and mine is; you are rationalizing the situation from a more idealistic standpoint and because of my over 20 years of involvement in the process I am rationalizing from what I have witnessed in the past. I thought a lot as you do when I was in my early 20's.
The US has been responsible for assisting in formation of 190 or so democratic governments since 1900. That represents a change from less than 1% of all nations being democratic of some form to over 60% of all nations with democratic values. In those nations there is very little civil disobedience, citizen disenfranchisement, aggression within or toward their neighbors. Why? Because the citizens are productive, educated not indoctrinated (at least not violently), content in their role in the future of their country. While some of the countries whom we pulled from the clutches of tyranny and dictators disagree with our methods, few of them have been instrumental in formation of any nations now enjoying the freedom they enjoy.
Tell me who doesn't want our interference? Are we talking bout Iraq? If rank and file Iraqis did not want us there the US would be suffering far, far more casualties than we are. There are some who have an interest in keeping blatantly corrupt dictatorships in power in the Middle East and around the world. They are who are fighting.
The other contingent fighting are religious fundamentalists. I have seen your distaste for Christian fundamentalists. Islamic fundamentalists are cats of the same stripe, just a different religion. A religion which espouses the belief "kill the infidels" (you).
In all of the countries you mentioned it isn't the people who are having our will forced upon them, it is being forced upon the leadership of those countries. Some of those countries have spent decades indoctrinating their people religiously, or in the same way cult leaders indoctrinate followers. Why would any human not desire freedom? Why would 900+ followers of Jim Jones knowingly drink poision?
The West is not a threat to anyone who is not a threat to The West. The stated goal of extremist Muslim nations is to "kill the infidels" (The West)
My neighbor lives by the same laws I do. If you change the word spanked to molested or locked in a car trunk. It is dictated to my neighbor and I the latter is unacceptable. If I or my neighbor refuse to follow the basic standards of decency we will be punished or made to do so.
By definition, a pre-emptive attack is an attack carried out in advance of an expected enemy attack. What is wrong with this? Must we first suffer casualties to gain justification for preventing future casualties?
If the neighborhood thug told you "Redworm, I think I will burn your house down while you are at work today" and they have burnt other homes is there justification for a pre-emptive attack?
Come on Redworm, really.
They don't because they enjoy their freedom from oppression and aggression(which our weapons provide).
True, in fact it may never get to Military occupation because of the volume of guerrilla attacks. It does not mean they must build without assistance from allies. The fact Iraqis and Afghans are participating in battles, participating in formation of a new government, and working to improve their infrastructure shows initiative on their part to embrace freedom and democratic values.
If 70%+ of our population desired Muslim liberation this task may not be too difficult.
pipoman:
We patrol the streets in tanks and with guns. It is military occupation. Nothing more or less.
Last time I checked the US was predominantly Christian and Iraq was predominantly Muslim.
What we have is a Christian nation occupying a Muslim nation by force of arms in order to bring about our preferred form of government (and to stabilize a major oil exporting nation). And to make it more palatible to these Mulims our prez refers to this activity as a 'Great Crusade.' Perhaps he might have chosen his words more carefully.
I'm not saying I have a problem with the fact that we occupy Iraq with troops and tanks. But I think we should be honest about it. It would be very analogous if a Muslim nation attacked, subdued and occupied the US to 'stabilize it as a technology and food-producing nation.' As I said, something tells me we would not like it very much.
Yes, some Iraqis support us and the Shihites are glad to be rid of Sadam. But most Iraqis, Shihite and Sunni alike, are not happy to have us roaming around their country with guns and tanks. And only some of them are willing to stand-up and join the army or police forces and risk being targeted by the insurgents. Too few, I'm afraid. The Sunnis still have much power and influence and they aren't going away. They may very well wait as long as it takes for us to tire of the war and leave. Overall, it's a fine mess. And it will probably take a long time for us to get out, and the chance of 'success' isn't particularly good. And Americans will continued to die there, and come home with terrible wounds and disabling injuries.
In many ways it reminds me of Vietnam, where I served in the US Army in 69-70. We stabilized and subdued the 'insurgents' there and appeared to have won the war. Except for this determined little guy in Hanoi known as Uncle Ho. Uncle Ho waited it out and in the end he won the war even from his grave. He won because he was patient, and perserverant, and he won because the politicians running that war were not good men. They were not honest men. Johnson, Nixon, MacNamara. As soldiers we deserved better.
This war disturbs me much the same way. I hate seeing the names of the fallen in the paper every day. Just like in Vietnam, many of our troops in Iraq are from less fortunate families and situations. Do we send them off in harms way to liberate others ? To secure our precious way of life? Why do they fight ? I don't think there is a simple answer. But I honor the sacrifice they make and their families.
I hope the politicians that are running this war are more honest and accountable than the ones who ran the Vietnam war.
____________________________________
We patrol the streets in tanks and with guns. It is military occupation. Nothing more or less.
Last time I checked the US was predominantly Christian and Iraq was predominantly Muslim.
What we have is a Christian nation occupying a Muslim nation by force of arms in order to bring about our preferred form of government (and to stabilize a major oil exporting nation). And to make it more palatible to these Mulims our prez refers to this activity as a 'Great Crusade.' Perhaps he might have chosen his words more carefully.
I'm not saying I have a problem with the fact that we occupy Iraq with troops and tanks. But I think we should be honest about it. It would be very analogous if a Muslim nation attacked, subdued and occupied the US to 'stabilize it as a technology and food-producing nation.' As I said, something tells me we would not like it very much.
Yes, some Iraqis support us and the Shihites are glad to be rid of Sadam. But most Iraqis, Shihite and Sunni alike, are not happy to have us roaming around their country with guns and tanks. And only some of them are willing to stand-up and join the army or police forces and risk being targeted by the insurgents. Too few, I'm afraid. The Sunnis still have much power and influence and they aren't going away. They may very well wait as long as it takes for us to tire of the war and leave. Overall, it's a fine mess. And it will probably take a long time for us to get out, and the chance of 'success' isn't particularly good. And Americans will continued to die there, and come home with terrible wounds and disabling injuries.
In many ways it reminds me of Vietnam, where I served in the US Army in 69-70. We stabilized and subdued the 'insurgents' there and appeared to have won the war. Except for this determined little guy in Hanoi known as Uncle Ho. Uncle Ho waited it out and in the end he won the war even from his grave. He won because he was patient, and perserverant, and he won because the politicians running that war were not good men. They were not honest men. Johnson, Nixon, MacNamara. As soldiers we deserved better.
This war disturbs me much the same way. I hate seeing the names of the fallen in the paper every day. Just like in Vietnam, many of our troops in Iraq are from less fortunate families and situations. Do we send them off in harms way to liberate others ? To secure our precious way of life? Why do they fight ? I don't think there is a simple answer. But I honor the sacrifice they make and their families.
I hope the politicians that are running this war are more honest and accountable than the ones who ran the Vietnam war.
____________________________________
Dear Carbiner: Take a break.
marks655, thanks for your service.
I do not agree with many of your positions.
There is risk of failure. The mission is just. A wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East would be a great prize for the US and victory for peace.
My point exactly. There were/are huge numbers who want(ed) American liberation. While I am sure many are ready for a lower US presence, most want peace, prosperity, and freedom. Most want a democratic government of some form. Most appreciate America's efforts to bring democracy. Again, if rank and file Iraqis did not want Americans occupying we would be suffering many more casualties than we are now. Every Iraqi is allowed to own a rifle and have ammunition.
Every member of our volunteer forces joined originally for honorable reasons. For some it is for education to better themselves. Others for stable income, get their lives in order, serve their country, learn a trade, make a career, etc. All honorable reasons. They realize the duty/price they vow to pay in return for their service.
You may not of had a choice to serve or not. If not your position is understandable. If you did serve by choice, seeing those forced to serve may explain your position.
Operating only from study of Vietnam not first hand experience, Vietnam and Iraq have very few similarities IMO.
I do not agree with many of your positions.
There is risk of failure. The mission is just. A wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East would be a great prize for the US and victory for peace.
My point exactly. There were/are huge numbers who want(ed) American liberation. While I am sure many are ready for a lower US presence, most want peace, prosperity, and freedom. Most want a democratic government of some form. Most appreciate America's efforts to bring democracy. Again, if rank and file Iraqis did not want Americans occupying we would be suffering many more casualties than we are now. Every Iraqi is allowed to own a rifle and have ammunition.
Every member of our volunteer forces joined originally for honorable reasons. For some it is for education to better themselves. Others for stable income, get their lives in order, serve their country, learn a trade, make a career, etc. All honorable reasons. They realize the duty/price they vow to pay in return for their service.
You may not of had a choice to serve or not. If not your position is understandable. If you did serve by choice, seeing those forced to serve may explain your position.
Operating only from study of Vietnam not first hand experience, Vietnam and Iraq have very few similarities IMO.
pipoman:
What you describe above is in my view 'economic conscription.' Very similar in many ways to conscription circa 1968.
I asked the question 'why do they fight?' in a broader sense. I think we all know why soldiers fight when sent to war. I'm proud to be a veteran and I'm proud of you, and all who serve in our military.
My question is: why are we sending them to fight? Do you think the 'mission' in Iraq is more noble or worthy than was Vietnam ? Do you think that in 1975 the people of RSVN wanted to become a giant communist POW camp? Remember the hundreds of thousands of 'boat people?' I like to think there was a 'just cause' behind the 58,000 Americans and the 1 million + Vietnamese who died in that conflict. But when you look back on it, the fact was, honorable or not, it didn't solve anything. It was a mistake.
Many nations and places on this globe have been, and will continue to be tortured by terrorists, war, famine, and madmen. Why did we choose Iraq? Why not the Sudan? Iraq didn't ask us to come 'liberate' them. How was our invasion justified? Can we - and should we - invade any nation we choose on the basis of the fact that they are not, but could be (and should be) a democracy? Not only is that insane, but if we follow-thru with the other couple-of-dozen nations in need of 'being built' as much or more than Iraq ever did, then we are going to need a lot more of you guys.
For the record I was 'RA.' And when I was serving in VN our Commander in Chief was playing 'weekend-zoomie' stateside (when he wasn't AWOL). Perhaps if he had served in VN he wouldn't have such an itchy trigger finger.
Last edited:
by Redworm
To impose is to force it on them... BUT they are screaming for our help and they are very happy to recieve it.
Sovereign implies that at least someone in the country is responsible... and, in this case, it's not the people.
Hypocritical does not take the above "operative words" into account when making these "judgements"...
A hypocrite is SELF-serving and he does so WITHOUT REGARD for anything but himself.
Look for the operative words!
To impose is to force it on them... BUT they are screaming for our help and they are very happy to recieve it.
Sovereign implies that at least someone in the country is responsible... and, in this case, it's not the people.
Hypocritical does not take the above "operative words" into account when making these "judgements"...
A hypocrite is SELF-serving and he does so WITHOUT REGARD for anything but himself.
pipoman: you make some really good points there, and I can understand the reasoning behind it. what I can't get past, however, is the fact that history has shown time and time again where the actions of cultures against other cultures are justified at the time yet condemned after the views of the world changes
I still feel that other nations should be the ones to decide how they're going to operate. If the people of a nation don't like it, they change it themselves. If they can't do so then it's no more our responsibility to police the world than it is for us to provide monetary assistance to them.
But I do see your point. You're right that I have an idealistic view of the world and to me the bottom line is that my freedoms, my rights, and my responsibilities end at the tip of my nose. I have no more responsibility to any given Iraqi than he has to me.
Sovereign does not imply responsibility. Maybe to you but no definition of the word that strictly means "operating without outside control or influence" implies any level of responsibility. The level of responsibility (also a completely subjective ideal) has no bearing on a nation's sovereignty. Many would agree that America and its' leader have acted grossly irresponsibly in the past few years yet that doesn't deny us our sovereignty.
Your definition of a hypocrite is also wrong. One can be very selfless and have every regard for others while still acting hypocritically.
I still feel that other nations should be the ones to decide how they're going to operate. If the people of a nation don't like it, they change it themselves. If they can't do so then it's no more our responsibility to police the world than it is for us to provide monetary assistance to them.
But I do see your point. You're right that I have an idealistic view of the world and to me the bottom line is that my freedoms, my rights, and my responsibilities end at the tip of my nose. I have no more responsibility to any given Iraqi than he has to me.
Who's "screaming" for our help and "very happy" about getting it? Provide details, plz.
Sovereign does not imply responsibility. Maybe to you but no definition of the word that strictly means "operating without outside control or influence" implies any level of responsibility. The level of responsibility (also a completely subjective ideal) has no bearing on a nation's sovereignty. Many would agree that America and its' leader have acted grossly irresponsibly in the past few years yet that doesn't deny us our sovereignty.
Your definition of a hypocrite is also wrong. One can be very selfless and have every regard for others while still acting hypocritically.
Can you be less vague? State examples, cite sources. Arguments should be about specifics, not emotional outbursts.
Many people have done many bad things over the years and it's going to keep happening for as long as human beings inhabit this planet. I believe it's a little more important to focus on our own mistakes than on the mistakes of others.
Many people have done many bad things over the years and it's going to keep happening for as long as human beings inhabit this planet. I believe it's a little more important to focus on our own mistakes than on the mistakes of others.
The problem is Iraqis were oppressed. Having never seen 1st hand government oppression it is easy to say "they change it themselves". The only reason, IMO, the US was able to successfully execute the Revolutionary War was because the British were outnumbered and unable to fortify their forces. The 21st century is a different world.
I hear the argument that there are other oppressed people, why aren't we liberating them.
Because in addition to Iraqis being oppressed the leadership of the State of Iraq made repeated threats and repeated actions in opposition of the US. They proclaimed desire to harm the American people and America's interests. The former regime was an enemy of the US.
The US will not interfere with other sovereign nations if they operate without committing genocide or threatening the US or US interests.
I do believe "the proof is in the puddin'". Every person in Iraq is allowed a firearm and ammunition. I believe the casualties would be much higher if the Iraqis do not appreciate the actions of the US to bring them freedom.
I'm not arguing that the Iraqi people are certainly enjoying more freedoms than they were before...but let me ask you this:
What if in ten years the Iraqis choose to elect another Saddam-like guy into office. They choose to allow a dictatorship to take over the country. They choose to exist with anti-west ideals. They choose to be run by strict Islamic law that ultimately results in America's inability to hold any kind of leverage over the middle east. They choose a society that allows the misogyny and religious persecution of before.
Do we let them do so because they voted for that kind of thing or do we try it again?
What if in ten years the Iraqis choose to elect another Saddam-like guy into office. They choose to allow a dictatorship to take over the country. They choose to exist with anti-west ideals. They choose to be run by strict Islamic law that ultimately results in America's inability to hold any kind of leverage over the middle east. They choose a society that allows the misogyny and religious persecution of before.
Do we let them do so because they voted for that kind of thing or do we try it again?
The problem with your idea of America's mistakes, is that it leads to condemnation. America's christians,military,corporate greed,racisim, and on and on like a democratic funeral sponsered by George Soros and Micheal Moore. Why don't you open your mind and see how great this country is and stop spitting on it. America has done far more for this planet than any other country 50x over.
This is a possibility. Every attempt to effect change in the Middle East until now has been a failure. Make a deal, the Mid East country reneges, complain to the UN, make concessions to gain agreement to another deal, they renege, etc. etc. Attempts at hostile take overs have all failed. Thus far this method has been more successful than any previous attempts.
A "definition" of "insane" I once heard is repeating your actions and expecting different results.
This attempt to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East has never been attempted before. You have to admit the US has had a pretty good record bringing freedom and democracy to countries who have never had it before.
The result of free states in the Middle East will be great public pressure on other less free governments in the Mid East. This domino effect is responsible for many of the 190+ existing democracies.
Any venture has a possibility of failure. If you fail to attempt you will never suffer failure or enjoy success. I think the risk is worth the price based on a human desire for freedom.