The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

What Role Should the United States of America take in dealing with foreign countries?

65% 65% 
[ 11 ]
35% 35% 
[ 6 ]
 
Total Votes : 17

The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Zaki90 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:11 pm

After numerous recent debates with my classmates and friends, one issue has always popped up and has never come to a conclusion.

And that issue is the US's role in foreign and how it should be done. I was heavily on the side that as the US is the only superpower today, it should lead roles in helping other countries like Libya and Iraq.

I find that Iraq and Libya were both committing genocide of their own people and various human's right violations, and not to mention crazed dictators who were mad with power and oil. I think it is absolutely necessary to eradicate these leaders and seeing that America is the one country who has the balls to do it, should do it.

Many of my friends sided against me, saying that with money concerns and domestic issues are more important than foreign countries and that foreign countries should duke it out themselves. They find that Iraq was a waste of money and troops and that we should have not invaded. And as for Libya, they believe we should take the sidelines and have our allies fight.

So it comes down to this. Should the United States of America have an aggressive role to combat crazed dictatorships that violently murder their own nationals, or should be sit in the bleachers and hope over countries fulfill our role.

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 25
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by TNine on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:23 pm

A balance.

The US was too aggressive in Iraq, and is being (slightly) too passive in Libya. We need to lead the way for other countries, but not drag them along.
avatar
TNine
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1200
Age : 23
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by tiny tim on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:30 pm

I think that we are being really too passive in Libya. We needed to go in there and maybe not have troops on the ground but at least train and arm the rebels, and provide air support. We shouldn't just hand over control of the operation like we have. America has the power to do some good so it should.

tiny tim
Crimson Cripple

Male Number of posts : 1762
Registration date : 2009-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by TNine on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:49 pm

tiny tim wrote:I think that we are being really too passive in Libya. We needed to go in there and maybe not have troops on the ground but at least train and arm the rebels, and provide air support. We shouldn't just hand over control of the operation like we have. America has the power to do some good so it should.
I mean "we" as in the West/world overall. NATO, EU, US, UN, all those fancy acronyms.

I think the only thing we need to do is perhaps train the rebels and definitely put marines and/or counter-snipers in Misrata.
avatar
TNine
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1200
Age : 23
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by CivBase on Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:37 pm

We [the US] aren't the only superpower... we're just the only one with enough balls to worry about someone other than ourselves. It's one thing to war against a country just because we don't agree with their leader, but it's another to free a people who are being oppressed and slaughtered by a tyrant.

As for Iraq, I always find it funny how so many liberals insist that it was a horrible war and should never have happened. They often make claims that Bush Jr was just trying to "follow in his daddy's footsteps." ROFL

After the Gulf War - which was entirely necessary for both America's and Kuwait's best interests - Bush Sr. made the decision to pull out and not peruse a counter-assault on Iraq. This decision was extremely unpopular and cost him and his party the next election, but he thought it was the right thing to do.

When the War in Iraq began, it was in response to claims of WMDs. Although the UN's investigation concluded that Iraq was not pursuing or in possession of WMDs, their compliance was given only through barred teeth and they openly announced intent on WMD research as soon as the Gulf War sanctions were lifted. Given Sadam's abusive regime, alleged ties with Al Queda (you know... the guys who destroyed the world trade centers?), intent to make WMDs, and strong opposition from both the American people and Iraqi people, the invasion was not at all unwarranted for. In fact, it was highly popular at the time.

After the war, however, withdrawal was slower than anticipated and democrats used this against Bush and the republicans. It gave Bush Jr the unfair war-monger image that he has today. Don't you just love politics?

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Felix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:53 pm

By the US do you mean the UN security council as well?
avatar
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2081
Age : 25
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:24 pm

I've never seen a single thing about iraq or any of these countries wanting to do nuclear weapons. They are always wanting nuclear technology, meaning reactors, to help get them out of being a third world country, which should be allowed, maybe put some small staff employed by the US to keep tabs on it, but nothing else. Instead we aren't letting Iran build a nuclear power plant.

and the Iraq genocide thing isn't too applicable, seeing as the 'genocide' they like to talk about had occurred over 8 years before the war started.

We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by TNine on Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:31 pm

KristallNacht wrote:We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.
And how many innocent people should we let die? How many massacres should be carried out? How many brutal dictatorships should be allowed to suppress their people?
avatar
TNine
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1200
Age : 23
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:22 am

as many as it takes. not everyone sees life the same way you do.

you need to understand that, as unfortunate as it is, not everyone is born equal. Us interfering isn't going to change that. It's more likely to put the US closer to not existing anymore.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Rotaretilbo on Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:10 am

KristallNacht wrote:I've never seen a single thing about iraq or any of these countries wanting to do nuclear weapons.

Common misconception: We went to war with Iraq over the possibility of nuclear weapons.

Fact: We justified the war with Iraq because we believed that they had restarted or not fully stopped their production of chemical and biological weapons. There were discrepancies in the reported dissolution of the Iraqi chemical and biological weapon programs, and intelligence apparently led us to believe that Saddam did indeed have such weapons. In fact, many of his own generals believed he had these weapons. In the opening moves of the war. Iraqi troops were deployed with gas masks, for Christ's sake.

Nukes aren't the only WMDs out there, guys. ;)

KristallNacht wrote:They are always wanting nuclear technology, meaning reactors, to help get them out of being a third world country, which should be allowed, maybe put some small staff employed by the US to keep tabs on it, but nothing else. Instead we aren't letting Iran build a nuclear power plant.

Have you ever been to the Middle East? Most of the nations along the Persian Gulf have more oil than they know what to do with. They do not have an energy problem, and so nuclear power would not solve their problems. Arguably, those nations that are Third World are so because of the oppressive regimes, not any energy problems.

Let's take Iran for example, since they're so bent on nuclear power. Gas prices quadrupled last December. Quadrupled to about $1.44 (that's USD). Prior to that, a gallon of gas in Iran cost $0.38. THIRTY-EIGHT CENTS! No, energy is not the problem. Furthermore, Iran does not want to build just any nuclear reactor. They insist on a heavy water reactor, the kind much more often used to produce weaponized nuclear material than the light water alternative.

KristallNacht wrote:and the Iraq genocide thing isn't too applicable, seeing as the 'genocide' they like to talk about had occurred over 8 years before the war started.

Better late than never.

KristallNacht wrote:We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.

There exist certain ethical tenets that it is not unreasonable to impose on all nations. In the event that there is a civil war in which one side is clearly supporting these tenets and the other side is clearly opposing them, I see nothing wrong with getting involved. I am not educated enough on the whole Libya issue to determine whether or not this would be the case, but your view of isolationism is hardly one that would benefit the US.

KristallNacht wrote:as many as it takes. not everyone sees life the same way you do.

you need to understand that, as unfortunate as it is, not everyone is born equal. Us interfering isn't going to change that. It's more likely to put the US closer to not existing anymore.

While I do subscribe to the "we can't save everyone" philosophy, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't save as many as we can. If we have the capability to save the innocent, we should.

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:41 am

While I am not against the US playing an active role in the world(to an extent), I do believe that at least some of the money used to fund all of those operations could be better spent on domestic projects.

_________________
I AM THE LAW

[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
avatar
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by RX on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:48 am

Heh, most of my friends and a damn lot of the people I know in general has this opinion: The US feels like it's the world's police. and it has to intervene with and bother with everything that they think doesn't seem like their view.
avatar
RX
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1957
Age : 24
Location : Ancient Kingdom of Norwegia
Registration date : 2008-12-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Ringleader on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:59 am

We should intact the prime directive.

Also with Libya, we shot 104 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the span of 24 hours, half our annual stockpile, we've already spent a HUGE amount of finances there.

What should we do? what are we obliged to do as the US? Well, since the Arab world wont be satisfied with anything we do (which is why they allowed us to intervene while doing absolutely nothing themselves), and since in all likelihood, this regime change is likely to change nothing in the coming years, what are we doing?

avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Ruski on Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:40 pm

The two choices don't cover overlaps or other possibilities, therefore, I will not cast a vote as I believe that while the US should help nations, they should seek approval on certain issues from other nations that aren't just in Europe (I fully acknowledge that the Arab League support the No-Fly zone being enacted over Libya) so we don't look like a "bully", and I don't think we should arm the rebels in Libya.
avatar
Ruski
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1218
Age : 23
Location : Canton, Ohio
Registration date : 2009-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:22 pm

a civil war is a personal matter for a country, and they need to be able to handle it themselves. The MOST we should do, is provide security for those not wanting to take part, but happen to be forced into the area until conflict slows, but we shouldn't even do that much.

There is zero benefit to us who wins, and our interaction and support for one side without actually invading full on can be more harmful than good. There isn't even, normally, too much benefit to the country based on who wins, at least not from anything that can be predicted.

in most of these countries, no matter what we do, they end up in the same leadership style as existed before. They do the 'democratic' thing for a while, and then the shit starts all over again.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Ringleader on Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:28 pm

Well, with the US Civil War, and the Revolutionary war, the union and Confederacy didn't use cruise missiles, tanks and smart bombs, there was actually some kind of chance for the rebels to win.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Zaki90 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:56 pm

KristallNacht wrote:a civil war is a personal matter for a country, and they need to be able to handle it themselves. The MOST we should do, is provide security for those not wanting to take part, but happen to be forced into the area until conflict slows, but we shouldn't even do that much.

This isn't a civil war. This is a revolution. The greedy dictator is murdering rebels who want to remove Qaddafi from power and abolish their false democracy and replace it with an unbiased government that actually changes to the needs of the people.

These rebels are citzens, like me or you, who have no professional training, no professional weaponry, and no professional armor capable of even standing a day against Qaddafi's army.

If we leave the rebels to handle it themselves, it is clear that the rebels will lose. Innocents will die. Dictatorship will run rampant. And millions will have their rights striped from them.

KristallNacht wrote:There is zero benefit to us who wins, and our interaction and support for one side without actually invading full on can be more harmful than good. There isn't even, normally, too much benefit to the country based on who wins, at least not from anything that can be predicted.

I'm not sure about you, but the last time I checked, killing a crazy dictator and instilling democracy in a country that is overrun with poverty is a good thing.

Not to mention thats one less crazy, middle eastern dictator with oil, which increases stability in the region.

KristallNacht wrote:in most of these countries, no matter what we do, they end up in the same leadership style as existed before. They do the 'democratic' thing for a while, and then the shit starts all over again.

What is that supposed to mean. In Libya, it used to be a monarchy. Then it became a democracy, but plagued by corruption, it basically became a dictatorship when Qaddafi came to power. The people here show real change. The want a true democracy that is free from corruption and bias.

And as America, the land of the free and home of the brave, we should strive to protect these rebels as they try to instill freedom and justice in their own country.


Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 25
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by CivBase on Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:18 pm

It isn't a civil war, it's a protest for people's rights that was answered with slaughter.

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:50 pm

its 2 groups fighting eachother over control of a single country with no other countries involved.

thats a civil war.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:02 am

So what exactly constitutes a reason to go to war, in your book? An attack on the United States? We saw how well that kind of isolationism worked during both world wars.

I mean, frankly, why is a civil war any more private than a war between two nations, neither of which is the US or one her close allies? If Iraq invades Kuwait, what do we gain from helping Kuwait?

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by MrX on Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:09 am

avatar
MrX
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 3080
Location : broadmore
Registration date : 2008-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:32 am

RX wrote:Heh, most of my friends and a damn lot of the people I know in general has this opinion: The US feels like it's the world's police. and it has to intervene with and bother with everything that they think doesn't seem like their view.

The US only intervenes because the UN, which is supposed to be intervening, is too busy being pussy chicken shit, and basically never does any kind of military intervention. I mean, the Darfur genocides started in 2003, and to this date, President al-Bashir, who has been charged with war crimes against humanity and genocide and has an active warrant out for his arrest has not only not faced trial at all, but has traveled to several nearby nations who have refused to arrest the man. The UN doesn't accomplish shit when the gauntlet is down.

_________________
avatar
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 28
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

View user profile http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:22 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:So what exactly constitutes a reason to go to war, in your book? An attack on the United States? We saw how well that kind of isolationism worked during both world wars.

I mean, frankly, why is a civil war any more private than a war between two nations, neither of which is the US or one her close allies? If Iraq invades Kuwait, what do we gain from helping Kuwait?

a civil war is more private because its a necessary thing for a developing nation, and its a fight between the government and the governed, or two groups of governed.

2 nations has two governments fighting.

with kuwait, we've already made treaties and such that cover our assistance in times of military need.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by CivBase on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:41 am

KristallNacht wrote:its 2 groups fighting eachother over control of a single country with no other countries involved.

thats a civil war.
No other countries involved? So... half the world doesn't count, then?

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by KristallNacht on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:10 am

CivBase wrote:
KristallNacht wrote:its 2 groups fighting eachother over control of a single country with no other countries involved.

thats a civil war.
No other countries involved? So... half the world doesn't count, then?

they only got involved after the fact.

forcing yourself to take part in another countries civil war, doesn't make it NOT a civil war.
avatar
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum