American Interests

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Scourge, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Scourge
    Online

    Scourge Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm looking for thoughts on this idea.

    American interests should come first.(before world interests, international law, environmental, and the like).
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    thats one surefire way to continue strife and mischief around the world.

    American interests should be considered right alongside world interests, since we do indeed all live in the same world.
     
  3. Scourge
    Online

    Scourge Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    it was more for those who think US comes before everyone else, and why... you and I are on the same page in this debate.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    gotcha :beer:
     
  5. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    This is the wrong way of looking at the problem.

    If America's national and economic interests are at odds with the others you've listed - then there is no solution. The only approach that will work is to come up with solutions which satisfy the competing objectives.

    No nation in history has ever sacrified itself for an amorphous global goal. I doubt the U.S. will break that pattern.
     
  6. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I'm not sure that I'd agree that american interests should always come first. Not the least of which is because I have no idea what interests only impact the US (and no other country) and I don't really know what "come first" means.

    Should the vast majority of our resources and time be spent on improving the lives of our own citizens? Yes.

    Does that mean fuck the other guys? No.

    Should our intelligence and energy be spent finding solutions that benefit everyone, even if we have to slight the benefit to the US? Yes.

    Do we owe it to any other country to hurt ourselves to help them? No.

    There will be times when we have to do what is best for us, regardless of the consequences to others. But I would hope that we temper such actions by doing the least amount of damage to others in attaining our goal.
     
  7. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    in my opinion, i think we should be looking out for our country first, before we help other countries. imnot saying not to help otehr countries, jsut make sure out yard is straight first. i see too many people here inthe US that are hurting too, but we need to rush off to help others forst, its not right
     
  8. Scourge
    Online

    Scourge Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The original statement was worded awkwardly (sorry).

    I guess certain instances of American history seem to show we care about #1 and damn the consequences. This tone has been set by previous administraions, and by the current one. Never apologizing for this country, Bush 1 saying 'I don't care what the facts are' when questioned about the army mistakingly(?) killing civillians (I forget which country it was). I guess Bush 2 invading Iraq NOT because they gassed Kurds, NOT because they were trying to attack us, but because of 'American Interests' and how America needs the middle east to be to satisfy those interests. Even trying to say the U.N. is worthless when they don't fall in line with us is a classic example of our attitude.

    Will we even allow an anti-U.S. Iraqi government to be elected?
     
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I would agree that american "interests" is the wrong way to word it.

    I think we have plenty of problems in our own country that need solving first and it shouldn't matter if country X is happy w/ said solution.

    There are a couple of ways to look at global improvent(that's vague i know)

    1) You take a step down to bring someone else up.

    2) You take a step up regardless of the consequences to others.

    3) You take a step up and it ends up benefitting everyone.

    2 is obviously wrong. 1 won't work. If someone tried to run on this platform they'd never get elected. It is not fair to make ourselves worse off for the sake of someone else. For this to be so one would have to be of the opinion that their life is worth less then anothers, which is not true.

    3 is the best solution and the one that the U.S. engages in most frequently. It is a fact that the world would not be where it is now if not for the advancements of this country which, by and large, have steadily benefitted the world
     
  10. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    America? I thought we lived in Israel. I mean, I was just assuming that based on our media coverage and our military policy. Am I wrong?
     

Share This Page