Discussion of why the US continually act as the authoritative body in foreign affairs

[Blitzkrieg]

Why is it that the United States always feels the need to police the rest of the world. Does it give us the sense of authority and power that we strive for, or is it simply because we believe that other countries are incapable of such a task. And furthermore, why is this responsibility left solely to us, more or less. I don't see Russia or China, who clearly have the means to do so, halting the countless occurrences of corruption we see in today's world, but whenever the united states gets a hint of any kind of totalitarianism they jump right in the middle of it and the don't relent until it is a perfect little democracy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A better question might be, where does the United States get the right to police the world?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

There's a very simple answer to that one.

Who would deny us that right.

Who would say that we had no right to liberate nations and rid the world of corruption. We're doing the world a favor, no one is going to tell us to stop but no one is going to help either so I guess it is our responsibility.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's a very simple answer to that one.

Who would deny us that right.

Who would say that we had no right to liberate nations and rid the world of corruption. We're doing the world a favor, no one is going to tell us to stop but no one is going to help either so I guess it is our responsibility.

Who would deny us that right? Anyone who believes that the United States government has no right to force our customs, values, and laws upon sovereign nations. Who can deny us that right? A good question.

Who's going to protect the rest of the world from our own corruption and empiricism?

 

[mightypeon]

Actually, your right is denied quite a bit. While Russia and China do not really care, and France Germany etc. do not have the resources, the US cannot dictate the policies of either of this countries. Vietnam also springs to mind.
In short, anyone who has a working air defense and nukes does not give a fuck.
Guess why everyone and their mother in the middle east are dead set on getting nukes.

Right now, the US military is tied up in two costly land wars in asia, so there wont be a lot of Marine Corps style liberations.

I find it interesting that you bring up corruption. Corruption is an intrinsic problem of many countries (it repeatedly drove Peter the Great Nuts for example, and Catherine the Great choose to ignore it after failing to affect it with several major undertakings), it is nothing anyone would consider as a reason to go to war. I am quite a history buff, but absoloutly noone said "we will get them rid of their corruption" as a casus belli for an offensive war. Corruption may be something that triggers wars of independence against the overwhelmingly corrupt country, but to the best of my knowledge the US is independent (War of American independence against Israel, well Israel scores quite high on transparency indexes so corruption would not be the reason right?).

Nothing against Israel here, apart from the Pseudonation of Wall Street, it is the only foreign state that can dictate US policies, in many cases against its interests.

 

[editec]

MOSTLY our foreign policy is a handmaiden to interests of some corporations which benefit by it.

Occassionally our foreign policy is based on what's best for the majority of Americans.

Even less occassionally our foreign policy is based on some human rights or humanity principle.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Whenever the united states gets a hint of any kind of totalitarianism they jump right in the middle of it and the don't relent until it is a perfect little democracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

That was a joke, right?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Well just look at Liberia. Thats exactly what we did.

 

[garyd]

And the French are attempting the same sort of thing in thesame part of the world.

 

[AllieBaba]

Great. An "I Hate America Thread" for Canadians, Brits, and self-hating Americans.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well just look at Liberia. Thats exactly what we did.

Uhh, well, that's quite a claim. Maybe it would make a difference if Charles Taylor hadn't already said he was stepping down from power before the Americans told him to.

But that doesn't make the claim any more humorous. I mean, if you're saying that the US has had some sort of mission to liberate peoples, the track record is frigging terrifying. You say "Liberia!", maybe you could EVEN stretch to say "Afghanistan!" or "Iraq!" (and that's a big stretch), but it doesn't erase the dozens of US-backed our outrightly US-installed dictators, just for the past 60 years:

1953- Overthrown democratically elected government of Iran; Shah installed as absolute dictator. (Interestingly, even Khomeini was on the CIA payroll until he actually deposed the Shah).
1954- Overthrown democratically elected government of Guatemala; installed brutal military junta and supported it for decades.
1973- Overthrown democratically elected government of Chile; installed Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet. Supported his attrocities.
1937- Marines land on Nicaragua, install Anastasio Somoza as dictator. Support of Somoza ruling DYNASTY, until 1979, which leads us to...
1980s- Funds terrorists to depose democratically elected (1986) government of Nicaragua, after the party in power deposed the brutal US-backed dictatorship of the previous 40+ years.
1978- Supports Saddam Hussein's coup. Supports Saddam Hussein regime until 1991. (Aka, full support and knowledge during Kurd-Killing, Iranian-Gassing, and all sorts of evil things that were later used to defend the invasion. Guess everybody forgot who was daddy when the atrocities were going on).
1970- Gen. Hugo Banzer overthrows Bolivian government. US supports him.
1965- Gen. Branco overthrows elected government of Joao Joulart in Brazil; with US help. Subsequently supported dictatorship.
1965-1998- Unwavering support of the brutal, genocidal regime of Suharto in Indonesia. (Clinton called him "Our kinda guy", the same guy who exterminated more than a third of the population of East Timor in 1975).

And of course, full support for the Argentine military junta (a couple of which were trained in one of the biggest terrorist camps in the world- The School of the Americas), the Salvadorean military junta, the Paraguayan dictatorship of Stroessner, the continuing support for the Saudi Royal Dictatorship, and of course Noriega, another alumn of the School of the Americas.

Of course, the support has often dependent on total obedience to US policy. So, when the Argentines mess with even bigger clients (i.e. Britain) there is no support. Likewise for Noriega or Saddam.

A true history of liberation. Thanks, America!

 

[AllieBaba]

You're welcome, loser.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Great. An "I Hate America Thread" for Canadians, Brits, and self-hating Americans.

Disagreeing with the foreign policy of the United States government does not mean you hate America in the least.

"It is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty." - Ron Paul

 

[AllieBaba]

Yawn.

 

[Mr. President]

Because the U.S. can back whatever they say they will do. That kind of power allienates you to a leadership position.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yawn.

My apologies, I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Diuretic]

After the end of the British Empire (the Brits didn't bother with subtlety in looking after their national interests) there was a vacuum and a rush to fill it. I think the only two powers that could have done so were the US and the Soviets. We know what happened.

The US, just like any other past and present world power, will intervene to protect or extend its national interests. This is nothing new. What's new is the need for the US to be subtle about it. The former empires of the world didn't have to bother.

 

[AllieBaba]

My apologies, I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Nothing you said was intelligent. It was mindless parroting of ridiculous crap that has been parroted so many times it doesn't merit a response.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing you said was intelligent. It was mindless parroting of ridiculous crap that has been parroted so many times it doesn't merit a response.

Ridiculous crap is one way to put it I suppose. Of course if the founders believed that dissent from government was ridiculous crap we wouldn't be a nation at all, but you go ahead and call those of us who don't agree with the idea of an American Empire anti-American.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't believe that dissent from government is ridiculous crap. I think the stance that you're being a "good citizen" if you're pissing on your government is ridiculous crap. I think this thread is ridiculous crap. It's more whining and posturing about "Dammit, why are we so GREAT? Can't we just sit around on our hands and act like losers, that's what everyone else does...why are we in the middle of everyone's business? Waaahhhh.."

Now that's ridiculous, juvenile crap. We're in everybody's business because we are the #1 power in the world, because we are the protectors of freedom. If that's too much for people to get their heads around, then they need to take a flipping nap.