American Interests

[Scourge]

I'm looking for thoughts on this idea.

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

 

[DKSuddeth]

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.

 

[Scourge]

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

gotcha

 

[wonderwench]

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.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Scourge
I'm looking for thoughts on this idea.

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

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.

 

[Johnney]

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

 

[Scourge]

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?

 

[Bern80]

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

 

[William Joyce]

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?

 

[Bern80]

I think my answer to the question Scourge is best summed up by a quote from Ayn Rand in her book "Atlas Shrugged"

"I do not seek the good of others as the sanction for my right to exist." -Hank Rearden

Simply it is not fair that i should have to make others well off before being successful, (however you choose to define that), yourself

 

[AtlantaWalter]

American interests should be just that...whatever aids, promotes, benefits, favors, supports, sustains, or assists AMERICA and its' citizens in attaining safety and a better life.

 

[RavenMaster]

America should do whatever they can to help their citizens. That includes listening to them once in a while. But America should not come first worldly. We are only one country and everyone else on earth needs the amount of attention necessary for their situation when it comes to the U.N and such. It all depends on what you mean by "come first"

 

[AtlantaWalter]

Originally posted by RavenMaster
America should do whatever they can to help their citizens. That includes listening to them once in a while. But America should not come first worldly. We are only one country and everyone else on earth needs the amount of attention necessary for their situation when it comes to the U.N and such. It all depends on what you mean by "come first"

I mean, when it comes down to it, doing whatever promotes or is useful to America now or in the future and does us no harm....irregardless of the needs of the rest of the world. My people, my country come first and foremost!!!!! Selfish? Yes!!! But I am talking survival of my country and my way of life not sharing some friggin' cookies at a tea party.

 

[Eagle need both]

I think there's no danger of the U.S. (or any nation for that matter...) acting in any way BUT their own interest. Human nature sees to that.

What's best for the U.S. in the long run, however, may just be what's best for the world. America won't be the supreme superpower unchallenged forever, and when our day in the sun is over, we may wish that we spent more time building and maintaining working friendships with other countries rather than trying to forcibly instill our idea of a model sociey on countries that may not be ready for them yet. We had to have our own revolution here to make it work, and even then still needed a civil war to sort out irreconcilable differences within the union before we emerged as a great nation.

It just seems to me that America runs a risk with such an aggressive foreign policy if it alienates us from the rest of the world and leaves us (and Britain) fighting it alone. That state of affairs usually doesn't last too long.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Eagle need both
I think there's no danger of the U.S. (or any nation for that matter...) acting in any way BUT their own interest. Human nature sees to that.

What's best for the U.S. in the long run, however, may just be what's best for the world. America won't be the supreme superpower unchallenged forever, and when our day in the sun is over, we may wish that we spent more time building and maintaining working friendships with other countries rather than trying to forcibly instill our idea of a model sociey on countries that may not be ready for them yet.

All people are ready for freedom. The backward thugs of their society may not be, but the silent majority are.

We had to have our own revolution here to make it work, and even then still needed a civil war to sort out irreconcilable differences within the union before we emerged as a great nation.

It just seems to me that America runs a risk with such an aggressive foreign policy if it alienates us from the rest of the world and leaves us (and Britain) fighting it alone.

America will always be a symbol of hope and freedom, regardless of the jealous euroliberal jackals and their negative spin. We've protected the world from tyranny on numerous occasions. Our record speaks for itself.

That state of affairs usually doesn't last too long.

Oh, it won't.

 

[Scourge]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
All people are ready for freedom. The backward thugs of their society may not be, but the silent majority are.

America will always be a symbol of hope and freedom, regardless of the jealous euroliberal jackals and their negative spin. We've protected the world from tyranny on numerous occasions. Our record speaks for itself.

I see, so that's why an Iraqi newspaper was shut down? For freedom? That's why people defending their homes and fighting the army that has INVADED their home are labelled as terrorists? Stong arm tactics and illegal wars do not a bastion of freedom make. WE are tyranny now, who is protecting the world from us?

And if we care about freedom and democracy, I guess we will allow the Iraqis to elect any government they wish, even if it's a US-hating Islamic Shariah fundamentalist regime, correct?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
I see, so that's why an Iraqi newspaper was shut down? For freedom?

Absolutely! They were trying to promote violence against the very people that are trying to bring them freedom. By stopping them they are promoting freedom.

That's why people defending their homes and fighting the army that has INVADED their home are labelled as terrorists?

No, they are referred to as 'insurgents'. No harm is going to be brought to them as part of a search. Harm will come to them if they try to blow up or shoot our soldiers for doing their jobs.

Stong arm tactics and illegal wars do not a bastion of freedom make. WE are tyranny now, who is protecting the world from us?

It's strong arm tactics against terrorists and insurgents, and those who harbor them - exactly what our military should be doing. The war is not illegal. We are not a tyranny.

And if we care about freedom and democracy, I guess we will allow the Iraqis to elect any government they wish, even if it's a US-hating Islamic Shariah fundamentalist regime, correct?

If we care about freedom and democracy, we'll assist in any way possible of helping them create a government that is best suited to achieve that goal.

 

[Scourge]

You said shutting down a paper was promoting freedom? Whose freedom? Not Iraqis...

Soldiers doing their jobs? pardon me, but if their job included murdering some civilians then they should have to deal with those family members anger...

And lastly, we will help them achieve a goal of freedom and democracy, their version or ours?

If it isn't their choice of government, it is neither freedom nor democracy. No matter how palatable and profitable it may be for the USA.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
You said shutting down a paper was promoting freedom? Whose freedom? Not Iraqis...

I feel bad that you can't comprehend that stopping the promotion of violence is in the Iraqi peoples best interest. The more peace that exists the more freedom they will enjoy.

Soldiers doing their jobs? pardon me, but if their job included murdering some civilians then they should have to deal with those family members anger...

Our soldiers haven't murdered any civilians and I think you're a fucking scumbag for even trying to pull this shit. It's war you pathetic asshole! People will die, including civilians. Yet I don't see you making one God damn post about our soldiers that our getting killed by terrorists and insurgents. Your just a lowlife piece of shit. You are exactly the type of garbage that I refer to when I say you should get the fuck out of the country if you don't like it.

And lastly, we will help them achieve a goal of freedom and democracy, their version or ours?

I only know one definition for freedom and one for democracy.

If it isn't their choice of government, it is neither freedom nor democracy. No matter how palatable and profitable it may be for the USA.

If these people aren't being systematically eliminated by their leader, and they have the ability to do what they want with their lifes - that is freedom.