United States role in International Community

I'm looking for public opinion here. I feel it is a difficult position to tackle. Here are our choices....

Cause: Country asks for our help and money
Action: We give them help and money
Result: They still hate us

Cause: Country asks for military aid
Action: We intervene
Result: Somehow other nations hate us for that intervention (as seen in Europe)

Cause: Country asks for military aid
Action: We say no
Result: America is accused of being weak on its foreign policy
Result 2: We are hated

Countries need to deal with their own shit. We are asked to intervene, but when we do, we take sole blame. I'm not for intervention, but we get pissed on either way.
The biggest power is always hated, that will be true for history yet to come.

Blackflag: I'm for intervention, but it has to be the right kind of intervention. Typically the USA is notorious for exploiting foreign aid intervention, for example, for their own gain, such as making aid contingent on the implementation of specific policies to the benefit of the US at a government level. It's undemocratic and effectively buying politicians, yet it happens all the time. That's typically the reason why they hate you after you give them aid.

I'm completely opposed to military intervention and believe that hatred as a result of that is entirely justified. Refusing military aid, however, I think you have the impacts wrong on. The ONLY people who have ever said America is weak on their foreign policy are other Americans. Nobody sane in the rest of the world ever thinks America is weak on their foreign policy. The other one is a case-by-case thing. Lots of conflicts you are praised for not intervening in, in much of the world. I think Ukraine today provides the ideal example of that. Nobody wants you to intervene, you're not intervening, and everybody is happy.

I think it's wrong to say you're alone in being hated. I think the world knows Blair was just as bad as Bush. But America does have two unique problems:
1) a culture of expectation - you hate not being the #1 superpower and feel the need to prove that point every so often
2) by extension, the aim of upholding America interests, as opposed to the interests of people globally in general.

admin: I disagree with you for several reasons.
1. We should go to war if it hurts us? Our economy drains as well, and Mississippi is suffering from 25% poverty.I'm not going to war at the expense of ourselves.

2. Foreign aid doesn't come with strings attached. That's because it is not foreign aid. Its literally money to our allies. We from money down a bit to fuel war machine proxies. That is completely justified. Not saying we should do it as much as we do. If people are getting angry because we send them aid, then I say screw them. We give the most foreign aid in the world, and at one point, more than the entire world, except China combined. We don't have to give aid at all, so we should people get angry at that?

I'm completely opposed to military intervention and believe that hatred as a result of that is entirely justified
There is smart intervention, and there is stupid intervention. Someone who thinks a country can survive without any millitary intervention is oblivious to how fragile the world is. I'm going to ask you a few questions, and test if you're truly opposed. Are you opposed to any of these wars.......

1. Korean War
2. Khmer Rouge bombing
3. Gulf War
4. Spanish American War
5. Ousting of Charles Taylor
6. Boxer Rebellion
7.Ousting of Raul Cedras (Operation Uphold Democracy)

Let me tell you what would of happened if we didn't intervene militarily in those wars.
1. North Korea would control the 50 million in the south
2. The Khmer Rouge would of killed way more than 25% of their population
3. Saddam would still control Kuwait, bloodshed would continue, and Saddam's massive army would of been projected elsewhere.
4. Genocide would continue in Cuba and Puerto Rico, Cuba would likely be a dictatorship right now (lol)
5. Democide would of continue in Liberia, and Charle's Taylors regime would reign to this date.
6. China would of finished off its organized killings of christians
7. There would still be a regime in Haiti

All these wars have two things in common (excluding korea). We lost almost no men, and did a lot to protect our intrests, and their intrests.
If you don't use intervention, then the strings which keeps the wheel a'turning, will snap. You need intervention. The question is when.
America has a 50% ratio of being in good wars and bad wars. A effective foreign policy for generations to come, is what we need,

The ONLY people who have ever said America is weak on their foreign policy are other Americans
Agreed, but we do lose support from the politicians who ask for our aid.
There was a solid lobby that we lost and suddenly regained in our current Iraqi operation.

I think Ukraine today provides the ideal example of that. Nobody wants you to intervene, you're not intervening, and everybody is happy.
Everyone is not happy. Especially Ukraine, who has begged Europe and America for intervention.
This is the problem though. Why do other countries care when we intervene?

The polls show that more europeans were angry at the Iraq War than Iraqi's.
But.........................................................why?
Note: I hate everything that war stood for

a culture of expectation - you hate not being the #1 superpower and feel the need to prove that point every so often
60% of Americans are opposed to millitary intervention. We suffer from a problem called gerrymandering. o
Most of our nation is liberal, but conservatives have a majority in the house.
With there being a 20% gap between liberal and conservatives, you can clearly see how screwed up democracy is right now.

The conservatives set the districts, and they do it in a way where minorities can attain power.

by extension, the aim of upholding America interests, as opposed to the interests of people globally in general
Can we do both?

admin: "I'm completely opposed to military intervention and believe that hatred as a result of that is entirely justified."

Could you precisely define military intervention? Can you do it without referencing arbitrary nation-states?

Blackflag: "There is smart intervention, and there is stupid intervention."
What about justified intervention vs unjustified intervention? Is a clever plan for success the only question that needs to be answered?

"1. North Korea would control the 50 million in the south"
As if they could feed 50 million with communist principles

"3. Saddam would still control Kuwait, bloodshed would continue, and Saddam's massive army would of been projected elsewhere."
Some might say the American military is projected everywhere and the bloodshed continues in the region...

"by extension, the aim of upholding America interests, as opposed to the interests of people globally in general
"Can we do both?""

Yes, just as an individual can seek their own interests without harming others... provided those interests are rational. If American interests are "make my administration look good until the truth comes out" or "those bastards must acknowledge our greatness"...

ADreamOfLiberty: So true, and nicely put.

Do people realistically think that the economy is the USA, or the poverty seen over the (and in most countries) is due to intervention? I highly doubt it.

sea_shell: The global economy is highly dictated by the G-20, so yes, America's economic survival is volatile.
The Third World survives only on trade, and without feeding into the EU and NAFTA nations, poverty would return to an 80% average in all those countries.

It isn't pretty, but that's geopolitics

America's economy is rising 4%, which is 2% above the developed national average.
Imagine how rich we would be if we stopped spending money on stupid shit like wars and intervention.

Maybe invest in some healthcare and economic security for our own people instead.

ADreamOfLiberty: As if they could feed 50 million with communist principles
Point in case
Some might say the American military is projected everywhere and the bloodshed continues in the region...
In kuwait? I'm pretty sure that was one of our good wars.

Yes, just as an individual can seek their own interests without harming others... provided those interests are rational. If American interests are "make my administration look good until the truth comes out" or "those bastards must acknowledge our greatness"...
I feel that is to often the case. I think Obama fell into pressure by interventionist elements as seen in Syria and Afghanistan, but I'm glad he backed out of both.

I often have trouble understanding public opinion in certain nations.
After the Gulf War, our popularity in the Arab world skyrocketed.

Then the invasion of iraq.....

Blackflag: We should go to war if it hurts us?
I never said that you should go to war. I'm completely opposed to military intervention remember?

That's because it is not foreign aid. Its literally money to our allies.
Explain the difference.

We give the most foreign aid in the world, and at one point, more than the entire world, except China combined. We don't have to give aid at all, so we should people get angry at that?
Imagine if I were to go to Africa and say to people "I'll give you a sack of rice if you promise to never use birth control". All these people would get my aid, sure, but the policies I'm making them implement screw them over in a way that only suits my ideology, not their future. Same sort of deal with countries. I'll deal with the Machiavellian undertone to this in our debate. Suffice to say I do think the USA and all nations have an obligation to give aid.

Someone who thinks a country can survive without any millitary intervention is oblivious to how fragile the world is.
Wrong. Countries WITH military intervention don't survive either.

Are you opposed to any of these wars.......
Yes. All of them.

North Korea would control the 50 million in the south
The main reason why N Korea became so corrupt is because nobody else in the world really likes them. This allows their authorities to hold power that is far more unchecked than would otherwise be possible. I believe that Korea would have ended up more like a slightly wealthier Laos had this war not taken place. Still a lot of poverty but not the big evil villain of the world.

The Khmer Rouge would of killed way more
Or did the bombing provoke them into killing more people? This generally happens when one side believes they are losing a war.

Saddam would still control Kuwait, bloodshed would continue
Bloodshed is continuing right now. There are still oppressive leaders all around the place.

Genocide would continue in Cuba and Puerto Rico, Cuba would likely be a dictatorship right now
What genocide? They had been in a war of independence. American intervention changed nothing as the immediate outcome of the war was an American conquest through the Platt Amendment.

Charle's Taylors regime would reign to this date
Yes because I can't think of any other terrible governments in west Africa right now (lol).

China would of finished off its organized killings of christians
Which of course they did a short time afterwards during the communist revolution. I also think you're misconstruing the nature of the rebellion.

There would still be a regime in Haiti
Do you believe Haitians are better off living as they are today?

I don't mean to just attack America in this. Of course the Boxers, Khmer Rouge, North Koreans etc were great and America is evil. I'm saying that America is not BETTER than them just because they were not necessarily the initial aggressor.

We lost almost no men, and did a lot to protect our intrests, and their intrests.
You don't know that. You don't know what would have happened had you not fought those wars. I do know this. Of the six wars you mentioned, in 4/6 cases, the country hates you openly to this day over that invasion. That doesn't protect the interests of anybody.

Not that I'm a fan of US policy towards Israel, but imagine if the US had invaded Israel over their taking of land from Palestine. I bet you'd also lose almost no men, and in the short term protect US interests (double your empire's influence) and Palestinian interests. But I bet Isiah himself will come down to punch in the wall of the white house, because that's not the sort of thing the jews will ever forgive lightly.

America has a 50% ratio of being in good wars and bad wars.
Define a "good" war. I'd like to see you justify killing people as "good".

Ukraine, who has begged Europe and America for intervention
Government and people don't always think alike.

Isn't it funny how after all this fighting, Ukraine and Russia are now sitting down together and negotiating? Would it not have been better to skip the fighting and just go direct to the negotiations?

The polls show that more europeans were angry at the Iraq War than Iraqi's.
Ironically, this is because europeans are better informed.

Can we do both?
Yes, but not with military intervention

ADreamOfLiberty: You know, I'm opposed to individuals killing each other as well. That's murder. When a nation commits murder or attempts to do so, I don't see that as any more justified.

Blackflag: The Third World survives only on trade
Except when their poverty comes about because G20 nations like America force them to export their natural resources at well below market rates.

Imagine if I were to go to Africa and say to people "I'll give you a sack of rice if you promise to never use birth control". All these people would get my aid, sure, but the policies I'm making them implement screw them over in a way that only suits my ideology, not their future. Same sort of deal with countries. I'll deal with the Machiavellian undertone to this in our debate. Suffice to say I do think the USA and all nations have an obligation to give aid
Can you give a couple of examples as of when America put obligations on foreign aid?

The main reason why N Korea became so corrupt is because nobody else in the world really likes them. This allows their authorities to hold power that is far more unchecked than would otherwise be possible. I believe that Korea would have ended up more like a slightly wealthier Laos had this war not taken place. Still a lot of poverty but not the big evil villain of the world.
North Korea WOULD control South Korea if the war had not happened. That is a fact.
North Korea invaded, not the United Nations.

Or did the bombing provoke them into killing more people? This generally happens when one side believes they are losing a war.
The bombings started years into the genocide. So no, they didn't.

What genocide? They had been in a war of independence. American intervention changed nothing as the immediate outcome of the war was an American conquest through the Platt Amendment.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/weyler.html

Yes because I can't think of any other terrible governments in west Africa right now (lol).
So that legitimizes one regime. Papa Doc and Charles Taylor were known for commiting mass democide.

Do you believe Haitians are better off living as they are today?
I do. I prefer anyone over a democidal dictator.

Government and people don't always think alike.

Isn't it funny how after all this fighting, Ukraine and Russia are now sitting down together and negotiating? Would it not have been better to skip the fighting and just go direct to the negotiations?
Do you read the news mate?
There are 1000 russian soldiers that have entered Ukraine in the past week.
They even sent in a trogan horse convoy disguised as humanitarian aid.

Although I'm against intervention in Ukraine, I think its neighbors need to be involved. Regional powers are needed to keep balance.

Define a "good" war. I'd like to see you justify killing people as "good".
War isn't good, but can be justified.
Provocation should be the path to war. War isn't something people want, but there are always people hungry or power/

Power is a currency, and if institutions like NATO and Union State didn't exist, believe me, there would be even more bloodshed.

You don't know that. You don't know what would have happened had you not fought those wars. I do know this. Of the six wars you mentioned, in 4/6 cases, the country hates you openly to this day over that invasion. That doesn't protect the interests of anybody.
Do you believe bloodshed can prevent more bloodshed? If so, why?

War is sometimes the only route to peace.
Or war is forced upon one nation to sustain balance and prosperity.
Do you believe the world would of been better off if the UK and US stayed out of war with germany in WW2?

admin: Except when their poverty comes about because G20 nations like America force them to export their natural resources at well below market rates.
Do you believe they would be better off without trade from the G-20?

Blackflag: Can you give a couple of examples as of when America put obligations on foreign aid?
In 1995 the USA promised aid to Nicaragua but made a point of suspending it because they weren't a democracy. Nicaragua became a democracy and the aid came back. That's a nice benign example.

And a more sinister example. The two biggest recipients of US aid just so happen to be the 2 countries where the US has the most foreign military interests: Egypt and Israel. Israel, which gets many billions of dollars each year, receives almost all its aid in so-called "military credits", which can only be used to buy weapons from the US.

And it gets worse. In Eritrea, the US government insisted their government buy only brand name US anti-aids drugs at ridiculous prices or else they threatened to cut aid. As a result the aids crisis worsened there as aids treatment generally became unaffordable.

If you've ever wondered why, for example, Camaroon voted enthusiastically in favor of the Iraq war in the UN despite that country having much bigger problems to deal with, this is your answer.

North Korea WOULD control South Korea if the war had not happened. That is a fact.
I don't deny that. I'm just saying the political economy of Korea would be different from how it is today, and as a result, the country would be different too. Like I said, it would be a marginally wealthier Laos. Better than modern North Korea, not as great as modern South Korea.

The bombings started years into the genocide. So no, they didn't.
You've got this the wrong way around. At the time of the bombings under Operation Freedom Deal, the Khmer Rouge had not yet seized power. It was because of the bombings that they could do that and began their genocide in their wake. It is my sincere belief that Pol Pot would not have been so enraged if the country he inherited was not blown to pieces. Nor did the US at any point end the occupation of the Khmer Rouge - that was pretty clearly almost all Vietnam with a bit of European backing, in the 80s-90s.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/weyler.html
Yes, in the middle of the war of independence Spain moved some people around. Doesn't negate my point.

Papa Doc and Charles Taylor were known for commiting mass democide.
And the war didn't stop him. He was still in power until 2003 when he voluntarily exiled himself to Nigeria. And let's be fair - the rebels who opposed him in the countryside weren't necessarily saints either. Today Liberia is still torn apart by armed conflict and crippling poverty.

I prefer anyone over a democidal dictator.
No hang on. Vilbrun Sam didn't kill just anyone, he just killed a few prisoners as soon as he heard the US was invading. Had the US not taken his land by force he would not have killed anybody.

There are 1000 russian soldiers that have entered Ukraine in the past week.
No, there are 1000 Russian militia. Russians are pretty passionate about defending "their" land, but it's not like Putin is pulling a Hitler here and saying "this great former Russian empire should all be ours - occupy it!" Russia is still only formally occupying the Crimea.

Provocation should be the path to war.
Right. So what level of provocation is enough to justify murdering just one person?

Do you believe bloodshed can prevent more bloodshed?
Not under any circumstances. Bloodshed has always led to more bloodshed in the long run, if not the complete annihilation of a people.

Blackflag: Do you believe the world would of been better off if the UK and US stayed out of war with germany in WW2?
Funnily enough, yes. This is one of the crazier views I hold, I know.

I need to make clear though that this in no way means I support the actions of NAZI Germany. I think had these interventions not happened, though, the death toll would have been significantly lower.

Blackflag: Do you believe they would be better off without trade from the G-20?
No. Which is why I don't think it's fair to hold them to ransom over it.