Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

America, as everyone, knows is seen as the world police, loved & hated. True, we are a superpower but should the responsibility of world peacekeeping be on our shoulders?

What other nation should take the intiative to resolve world conflicts and disasters?

America stop the genocide in the Balkins, sent & is sending millions to deal with Africa's AIDS epidemic, assisted in Iran during that recent earthquake, still guarding the 38th parallel & proctecting S. Korea from N. Korea, allowing about a million legal immigrants into our borders each year, etc.

What About Current Problems? Other than nations pointing to America and asking/telling us to be the first to step up, who else should step up? Does any other nations - aside from U.S. or Great Britain - step up to solve world disasters?

1] Darphur, Sudan where genocide is being commited.

2] North Korea and their nukes.

3] Iran and their nukes.

4] World hunger.

What OTHER nations SHOULD TAKE ON some of these JOBS? Taking BOTH the intiative and burden, aside from America & Great Britain?

Is there a country out their that's WILLING TO STEP UP?

The UK and many continental Europe are set to be real problematic and burdensome zones soon enough.

it is unfair to claim that US are keeping all the world in peace.
i think that the rest fo the world could actually manage to survive without US-baby-sitting

the U.N. has been doing peacekeeping for years, and it'll keep doing it.

It should be a cool, laidback nation who keeps the world peace. Therefore I nominate Holland or New Zealand.

i dont think UK should be anything to do with it, not with all the EU problems atm

atm they cant even decide how many sugars they want in their tea

Actually i think the world would be better off without america assuming the role of the police force.

Woodrow wilsons government decided they would get out of the worlds problems, and just deal with themselves
if only it had stayed that way

The UN leaves anytime it gets to controversal look at Somalia.... they left when the warlords started attacking them...

The UN is mainly a diplomatic means... in Bosnia they watched ... in Korea the UN forces were 98% US and there were no standard UN light blue uniforms till the 70s they didn't help in Vietnam... they didn't help Isreal in the Six day war or in the several wars following that in the region... they do nothing between Palistine and Isreal now .... and there are no UN forces currently fighting terrorists anywhere.... not in Afganistan, Pakistan, Russia, .... nowhere

Unfortunetly for the world there are only two Countries on earth with aircraft carriers....the US and Britian.

better the u.n. than warmonger bush

tbh i would LOVE for every country to keep themselves to themselves...
Asia and Africa would collapse in on itself soon enough, but all the western countries would be living up in lives of luxury

then we'd be having a different argument on here, about how the rich countries should be giving financial aid to the poor countries, and sorting out the rampant dictatorships that would quickly spring up everywhere

give up, im not arguing about Bush anymore....and safe to say that comment was stupid neway

the us cannot do it alone... it never could.... but no one apparently other then us are willing to...

i changed it df, but you need to lay off europeans

woodrow wilsons woulda worked if theyd stood up to hitler

Then why hasn't France, Germany, Italy, Russia or any other countries stepped up to stop the genocide in Darphur? Why didn't any European nation step in to stop the genocide in the Balkins? America, which was half a world away, was the one who took the initiative and did most of the work to stop the killing. And please don't tell me it has something to do with oils or resources cause THEY HAVE NOTHING the U.S. wanted. There was a genocide; the U.N. couldn't stop it; the U.S. did. .

If the world can manage, then why didn't the world stop the Balkin's genocide? Darphur is suffering from one group trying to kill another group; if the world can manage without the U.S. (or Great Britain), why haven't they? Who else is going to step up? Names of nations?

thank you, sum1 shares my opinion

they did that and WW2 happened it doesn't work... we should not be in anyones problems but rather when we see some country suffering from some famine or horrendous outbreak or a crazy madman taking over the government and slaughtering thousands we should help... do to the fact that if we stand by and do nothing the people of that country will look at us and ask why we didn't help and then we got a generation of people who wanna blow us up because we are prosperous.

clinton went in to the balkans get attention away from monica which is as stupid reason as any, once they got milosevic they pissed off and left the u.n. to clean up

to be fair, America had very little to do with the causes of WW2

and what about Stalin? would they have been able to stand up to Hitler and Stalin in alliance? at first that was what it was.

yeah, but stalin as bad as he was changed sides eventually.

if theyd stopped hitler stalin woulda fallen into line

but Stalin killed thousands of his own ppl in the battle of stalingrad...amongst other times

u seem to love complaining about the deaths of innocents, why not these 1's?

our isolation nutured our entrance. if we had outright entered the war and sent troops during the "sitzkrieg" nearly 7 months of sitting around mind you... Europe would not have fallen. If we had truely stood our ground at the genieva convention and had signed the league of nations pact and had not been swayed been the public isolationist ideals after WWI none of WW2 would have happened.

if ppl there want to kill each other it is their buisness.

OMG Clinton wanted to do more in the Balkins, but because of Monica he didn't want to look like he was taking attention away from that case, its the other way around dude.

it was a ticking time bomb tho, europe was gonna explode American intervention or not...

True, but you think the entire U.S. congress both Democrats and REPUBLICANS approved the war to benefit Clinton? As for the UN cleaning up, what's the matter with that? If they couldn't stop the genocide, then atleast clean up. It was mostly American troops and American casualties - we should bare the burden of clean up too? Hell, America cleaned up after WWII, cost us billions - it was called "THE MARSHALL PLAN," ever of it.

df i made one bad comment get off my f*ckin back, stalin was an ass yes, but we wouldnt have beat hitler without him

i know all about the marshall plan, but it shows immense ignorance to not want to clean up your own mess

genicide is something that isn't just wanting to kill eachother, its exterminating an entire race due to hate... the people molosovich were killing could not stand alone and fight... they tried but the ex-soviet block government was too strong and well equiped to resist.

i know what is genocide.


maybe i used wrong words. sorry.

before the time bomb we had a chance. Germany had an army of 30,000 at the end of WWI and hitler built the army he made in a span of 7 years. The europeans stood and watched as they rebuilt.

no worries

Genocide is bad.

???What are you talking about? Has Europe or Asia repaid all the cost of the Marshall Plan? So America didn't clean up, but how is preventing genocide a "mess." Does the UN have a problem with cleaning up what America tried to stop, 'cause it sure as hell wasn't the UN who stopped the genocide. I guess American troop casualties & war cost doesn't equal the clean effort the UN had to do, huh?

u are not listening to me, read it again, slowly

VERY bad

I know what you wrote. Again, America stopped the genocide that the UN didn't, atleast the UN should clean up the mess since they US did most of the work of the war.

hysterical considering that the US supplies 25% of the UN troops, around 40% of the UN budget, and built 100% of the arms the forces use... i think we still have a hand in the clean up to

Why is Russia in a category of its own?

the american airforce bombed the shit out of the place killing too many civilians, leaving them homeless, then expecting the u.n. to repair the costs.

and raven, most peacekeepers are unarmed, the american government don't have as big a budget in the u.n., they do in N.A.T.O, there is a difference.

i don't know... the only explanation i can think of towards that is that they are not part of the EU and are the most diverse and for the past nearly 100 years have been considered the enemy and every battle plan in europe and the US have been devised to smash them the Cold Wars woulds run deep i guess ...

Technically the UN was not created to be a police force, nor as a military body, it was meant to be a forum, a place where nations could talk out problems, plan actions and try to solve disputes with out the terrible cost of war. They don't actually have any real power, as such, they are a body that lets international consensus guide. The UN can declare and impose punishments like sanctions and trade embargoes, but it doesn't help if nations don't obey. Even more so it is a body that is meant to aid, not rage wars. Thats said, it is true that the world survived for a long time with out a peace keeper, but this is not really applicable any more, at least not with the power a nation can wield these days.....

Still, I don't think any one nation should be a police force, what I would like to see is full blown dissolving of nations and the creation of a true, progressive world state!!!!

Particularly in repsonse to Beyonders comment about Darphur.
The American's didn't do a good job in Darphur. 800 000 people lost their lifes before they came in.
American commander Romeo Dallaire spent his time either fighting at Darphur or trying to convince the UN to come in. The UN literally turned their back on Darphur and the notion was "there was nothing of national interest".
Romeo Dallaire ended up with 500 men to fight when he espected 4500 and needed even more. The american's did nothing until after 800 000 deaths.
What people need to realise is that politics aren't going to fix problems.
This goes as far back as the 1800's, It has been happening for over 100 years and no amount of politics will stop anything. Even so America didn't even go into to politics.
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america

edit

Originally posted by LoneWolf_Spike
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america

Then again it's not as though the rest of the world stepped in, in any major way. So relatively speaking it was a good job by America.

People bash the U.S. for not doing a good enough job...but no one else even tries. As far as us minding our own business and whatnot... if the U.S. decided to mind our own business instead of trying to be diplomatic with problem countries and places then we wouldn't be doing business with 1/2 the nations we do. And if we quit doing business with them they lose the majority of their national income which comes from us importing things from them. Also, america gives the most money to charity across the world. I think in second place to that is the EU. Not one place but the collective European Union. So i think that we might not do the best job, but at least we're trying. And if anyone else wants to step up and give it a shot they're more than welcome to lend us a hand.

Originally posted by LoneWolf_Spike
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america
I'm sorry - what did any other country do?

You're right. Good job, America, for being willing to do something no one else in the world would.

Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Noone is bashing America, it is the administration which has been same for the past 30 years, that is being bashed.

And what you wrote is simply not true. If American Administration REALLY cared about ''peace keeping'', they would have ''invaded'' Darfur.
Where are Americans while civil war and unreast is happening in Sri Lanka for the past 26 odd years?
Why is there no American ''peace keeping'' in Israel?
What about unreast in Nigeria? Civil war in Colombia?
Why doesn't America invade/bomb China and Free Tibet, since so many have recently become such experts on Chinese/Tibetian history?
What about Chechnya? Why doesn't America interfear with Duma the way it does with other small defenceless countries and tries to spread ''democracy'' and ''freedom'' there?
What about Kashmir? Why don't you invade India and deal with the Kashmir problem?
What about Congo?

Small defenceless countries with stratigic locations/potential satelite states/natural resources = good peace-keeping-democracy-spreading operation hot spots.

Strong millitary or unimportant secluded countries of no particular importance = noone cares.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Sorry. Like where?

You can't imply that Afghanistan or Iraq fall under those definitions because the US went to war in both for entirely different reasons. The 1st to chase the Taliban post 9/11 and the 2nd for alleged WMD's. There wasn't any real conflict in either country (although that's not to say there wasn't anyone being oppressed or killed because there was)

The only time the US can really claim to have done anything was in Bosnia in 1995, at which point it was far too late to have done anything effective.

Other sterling examples....Somalia, Korea, Vietnam.

Yay...U...S...A.

We've got the biggest......balls of them all.

^and it only does to reason that people all around the globe should shoot at them untill theyr riddles like swiss cheese with semen rushing out in torrent.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
We've got the biggest......balls of them all.


thats because its testicular cancer.

^errrrrr............ shudnt that be testicular cancer?????? unless your talking about painful male anal

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^errrrrr............ shudnt that be testicular cancer?????? unless your talking about painful male anal


yes you are right keep thinking of the nut check procedure turn your head and coff.

No one nation should be the primary peacekeeper. It should be the role of the United Nations Security Council.

forget the UN we need the most powerful nations to take over the world and rule by strict punishment that would stop all the stupid little wars that everyone is always crying about.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Noone is bashing America, it is the administration which has been same for the past 30 years, that is being bashed.

And what you wrote is simply not true. If American Administration REALLY cared about ''peace keeping'', they would have ''invaded'' Darfur.
Where are Americans while civil war and unreast is happening in Sri Lanka for the past 26 odd years?
Why is there no American ''peace keeping'' in Israel?
What about unreast in Nigeria? Civil war in Colombia?
Why doesn't America invade/bomb China and Free Tibet, since so many have recently become such experts on Chinese/Tibetian history?
What about Chechnya? Why doesn't America interfear with Duma the way it does with other small defenceless countries and tries to spread ''democracy'' and ''freedom'' there?
What about Kashmir? Why don't you invade India and deal with the Kashmir problem?
What about Congo?

Small defenceless countries with stratigic locations/potential satelite states/natural resources = good peace-keeping-democracy-spreading operation hot spots.

Strong millitary or unimportant secluded countries of no particular importance = noone cares.

We have operations going on in multiple different countries. Some are not as militaristic as others but we do have them going on in other places (political aid, financial aid). We typically only step up and bring in forces or invade a place if we believe they are a threat to us at home (or if they have oil and a dumb redneck and former chairman of OPEC are Pres and vice Pres).

Originally posted by jaden101

The only time the US can really claim to have done anything was in Bosnia in 1995, at which point it was far too late to have done anything effective.


USA was there from the start of the War. They're the ones that supported radical Islamic leader of Bosnians, Allia Izetbegovich who was bent on making an Islamic country in the heart of Europe at the expence of minorities.
Although CNN and BBC truth varies.

The funny thing about Bosnia is that 2 men out of 19 responsible for 9/11 were fighting at the time in Bosnia alongside Allia Izetbegovich's and US NATO forces.

As as thanks, in 1993, Bosnia granted Osama Bin Laden and his assistant a Bosnian passport and citizenship.


Peace keeping in other countries, humanitarian intervention and all that bollox will come back and bite America in the ass - as it has many times.

The problem is, it won't be those fat old farts in the Administration that will suffer, but their own people. And it looks like they just don't care.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We have operations going on in multiple different countries. Some are not as militaristic as others but we do have them going on in other places (political aid, financial aid). We typically only step up and bring in forces or invade a place if we believe they are a threat to us at home (or if they have oil and a dumb redneck and former chairman of OPEC are Pres and vice Pres).
Oh come on mate, you know that is not true.

But I can bet you, that greatest majority of Americans, not only don't know all the regions their country is involved in, but also where those countries are situated.

Lets look at 2 biggest potential ''threats'' to world and America - Iran and North Korea.

Iran has not declared war on anyone since 1970s and North Korea hasn't declared a war since 1975, while America declaires one war every 2-5 years.
How can then Iran or North Korea be called unstable threat to the world and America? They haven't declared war on anyone in over 38 years!

It is not that simple. American administration does not wage war to threats, because that would mean engaging in war with itself and half of EUcratic Union.

Do America really declare one war every 2-5 years? hmm, maybe they are the unstable threat to world peace that should be invaded then...

Originally posted by Burning thought
Do America really declare one war every 2-5 years? hmm, maybe they are the unstable threat to world peace that should be invaded then...

The rest of the world is nothing but a bunch of liberal pansies.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh come on mate, you know that is not true.

But I can bet you, that greatest majority of Americans, not only don't know all the regions their country is involved in, but also where those countries are situated.

Lets look at 2 biggest potential ''threats'' to world and America - Iran and North Korea.

Iran has not declared war on anyone since 1970s and North Korea hasn't declared a war since 1975, while America declaires one war every 2-5 years.
How can then Iran or North Korea be called unstable threat to the world and America? They haven't declared war on anyone in over 38 years!

It is not that simple. American administration does not wage war to threats, because that would mean engaging in war with itself and half of EUcratic Union.

You really don't know anything about the state of the world. In iran the extremist who are in control there use a mushroom cloud on their flags as their icon now. N. Korea has violated all the treaties and everything they've been involved in, and the country is run by a clearly crazy dictator. I will say the U.S. has been in many wars, but they're usually based on freedom. For instance WWI, then again in WW2. Should we have just sat those out and let the rest of the world fend for itself? Because from what I can recall the rest of you guys weren't faring to well. There have been wars that we've been in that were uncalled for (vietnam, iraq) and look what's happened because of that. Public outcry and us electing someone who is vehemently opposed to war. Just because the rest of the world decides to ignore violence going on in other counties doesn't mean we should. The vast majority of UN armed forces are funded by U.S. money and made up of U.S. soldiers. So the question remains who should step up? Because it is a fact that the U.S. does the majority of peace keeping and funding for world peace. What countries should be giving more of their money and time to world peace?

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You really don't know anything about the state of the world. In iran the extremist who are in control there use a mushroom cloud on their flags as their icon now. N. Korea has violated all the treaties and everything they've been involved in, and the country is run by a clearly crazy dictator. I will say the U.S. has been in many wars, but they're usually based on freedom. For instance WWI, then again in WW2. Should we have just sat those out and let the rest of the world fend for itself? Because from what I can recall the rest of you guys weren't faring to well. There have been wars that we've been in that were uncalled for (vietnam, iraq) and look what's happened because of that. Public outcry and us electing someone who is vehemently opposed to war. Just because the rest of the world decides to ignore violence going on in other counties doesn't mean we should. The vast majority of UN armed forces are funded by U.S. money and made up of U.S. soldiers. So the question remains who should step up? Because it is a fact that the U.S. does the majority of peace keeping and funding for world peace. What countries should be giving more of their money and time to world peace?

I think you're the last person qualified to teach me or anyone about the state of the world.

It was America who devided Korea to begin with, aided and assisted making two republics out of one country.
It was America who funded and trained Taliban to fight against Russians, who according to American Administration were the devils of the world.
It was America who employed Saddam Hussein to run as a president, then when they no longer saw him fit, brutaly executed him in public.

Now pay attention -

America overthrew DEMOCRATICALLY elected Prime minister of Iran and REPLACED him with psychotic dictator deemed suitable for them. You know why Mosaddeq was replaced in the 50s? Because he opposed foregin intervention in Iran!


So don't even attempt to go there. You don't know where half of those countries are. You learn georgraphy when your country invades certain countries, and now all of a sudden every Joe is an expert on the rest of the world.

There are people in the world, millions upon millions of them who DON'T want American democracy, American food, American way of life or government.

Other countries develop weapons to defend themselves from America - because America doesn't invade/bomb countries which are capable of defending themselves.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You really don't know anything about the state of the world. In iran the extremist who are in control there use a mushroom cloud on their flags as their icon now. N. Korea has violated all the treaties and everything they've been involved in, and the country is run by a clearly crazy dictator. I will say the U.S. has been in many wars, but they're usually based on freedom. For instance WWI, then again in WW2. Should we have just sat those out and let the rest of the world fend for itself? Because from what I can recall the rest of you guys weren't faring to well. There have been wars that we've been in that were uncalled for (vietnam, iraq) and look what's happened because of that. Public outcry and us electing someone who is vehemently opposed to war. Just because the rest of the world decides to ignore violence going on in other counties doesn't mean we should. The vast majority of UN armed forces are funded by U.S. money and made up of U.S. soldiers. So the question remains who should step up? Because it is a fact that the U.S. does the majority of peace keeping and funding for world peace. What countries should be giving more of their money and time to world peace?

Do you have even the remotest idea what you're talking about?

America didn't want to fight in WW1 even after the German's had killed over 100 US citizens aboard the Lusitania and it was only after the British broke the German code and discovered a telegram to Mexico to side with Germany and declare war on America that the US did anything.

Your country blatently ignores violence going on in the world and refuses to help...Does Rwanda ring any bells?...1,000,000 killed in 100 days and the US spokewoman said they didn't intervene because it wasn't genocide....It was "acts of genocide" which means they weren't obligated to intervene. The same excuse is being applied to Sudan and Zimbabwe

I can assure you the vast majority of UN peacekeepers certainly are not US troops. Infact I can't even think of a single example of where US troops have worn the blue hats of the UN peacekeepers. In Rwanda it was the French and Dutch. Currently in Sudan it's Indian troops.

So you can keep claiming that it's only the US that's doing anything but the fact is you're talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by jaden101
Do you have even the remotest idea what you're talking about?

America didn't want to fight in WW1 even after the German's had killed over 100 US citizens aboard the Lusitania and it was only after the British broke the German code and discovered a telegram to Mexico to side with Germany and declare war on America that the US did anything.

Your country blatently ignores violence going on in the world and refuses to help...Does Rwanda ring any bells?...1,000,000 killed in 100 days and the US spokewoman said they didn't intervene because it wasn't genocide....It was "acts of genocide" which means they weren't obligated to intervene. The same excuse is being applied to Sudan and Zimbabwe

I can assure you the vast majority of UN peacekeepers certainly are not US troops. Infact I can't even think of a single example of where US troops have worn the blue hats of the UN peacekeepers. In Rwanda it was the French and Dutch. Currently in Sudan it's Indian troops.

So you can keep claiming that it's only the US that's doing anything but the fact is you're talking out of your ass.

Well yes at this particular time we don't have too many troops in regions that aren't affecting us because at the moment we have a war in iraq and afghanistan occupying a good amount of troops.
Here these figures are from 2007 but this should give you an idea so you don't just spout "facts" out of no where: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
It's fun when people argue and use their facts without actually looking up the real ones. And I never said we were the only one doing anything. I said we were doing the most. Which is a fact. We have the most deployed troops around the world and give the most to help impoverished nations. When it comes to giving financial aid to other countries we rank first with i believe it's 28.4 billion a year....now how much does your country give? Unless you're in Saudi Arabia you're not even close (and even they pale in comparison with only 15.1billion). So again I ask who wants to step up and provide more troops for peace keeping and donate more or give more food, medicine, and aid? Or are you going to again just say I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm American?

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Well yes at this particular time we don't have too many troops in regions that aren't affecting us because at the moment we have a war in iraq and afghanistan occupying a good amount of troops.
Here these figures are from 2007 but this should give you an idea so you don't just spout "facts" out of no where: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
It's fun when people argue and use their facts without actually looking up the real ones. And I never said we were the only one doing anything. I said we were doing the most. Which is a fact. We have the most deployed troops around the world and give the most to help impoverished nations. When it comes to giving financial aid to other countries we rank first with i believe it's 28.4 billion a year....now how much does your country give? Unless you're in Saudi Arabia you're not even close (and even they pale in comparison with only 15.1billion). So again I ask who wants to step up and provide more troops for peace keeping and donate more or give more food, medicine, and aid? Or are you going to again just say I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm American?

Deployed troops don't mean anything. It just means where the US has military bases. The vast majority of the places on that map are simply bases left over from WW2 or the cold war. The US has bases in the UK but they're not here on peacekeeping missions are they?

Still. Lets talk about the US wars of aggression against other countries...meaning wars that weren't about defending themselves

Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Korea, Laos, Nicaragua and the Philippines.

A top notch bunch of countries capable of putting up a great fight.

Now lets look at all the places where other countries waged wars of aggression and the US didn't bat an eyelid

Israel (however many times they've done it now), South Africa, Morrocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq (against Iran...they even aided Iraq in waging the war)

As for your point on aid. The US should be paying the most. It is the country which exploits the world the most. It's the country which gives the worst trade deals to impoverished countries the most. Even it's supposed allies get ****ed over if it means the US can make more money. I also wouldn't get holier-than-thou over it either because as a % of GDP the US gives the least out of the g8 nations.

So you see. The claims of the US being a country which stands and fight world injustices is a fallacy. The US has disregarded more UN treaties and resolutions than any country apart from their ally Israel.

Originally posted by jaden101
Deployed troops don't mean anything. It just means where the US has military bases. The vast majority of the places on that map are simply bases left over from WW2 or the cold war. The US has bases in the UK but they're not here on peacekeeping missions are they?

Still. Lets talk about the US wars of aggression against other countries...meaning wars that weren't about defending themselves

Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Korea, Laos, Nicaragua and the Philippines.

A top notch bunch of countries capable of putting up a great fight.

Now lets look at all the places where other countries waged wars of aggression and the US didn't bat an eyelid

Israel (however many times they've done it now), South Africa, Morrocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq (against Iran...they even aided Iraq in waging the war)

As for your point on aid. The US should be paying the most. It is the country which exploits the world the most. It's the country which gives the worst trade deals to impoverished countries the most. Even it's supposed allies get ****ed over if it means the US can make more money. I also wouldn't get holier-than-thou over it either because as a % of GDP the US gives the least out of the g8 nations.

So you see. The claims of the US being a country which stands and fight world injustices is a fallacy. The US has disregarded more UN treaties and resolutions than any country apart from their ally Israel.
lol you bring up countries we've been involved with from a military standpoint without pointing out why we were. And yes the U.S. is making tons of money by supplying the U.N. with the money they used to buy over 50% of their supplies and vehicles with. We make a ton of money going on the other side of the world to maintain peace in countries that pose absolutely no threat to us, only to the European nations that they routinely bomb. And you're arguing that the U.S. doesn't do anything....despite the fact that it's a proven fact we give the most. I never said we give the highest percent per capita, I said we give the most by far. Far far more than any other country. You bash the U.S. but we are doing statistically the most. We give the most aid both in man power and money. You still have yet to tell me which country your from and what your country has been doing to help? You notice you rarely see Americans bashing any other country over them trying to help. We appreciate the help. Everyone bashes us because we're not living up to your standards? Hold your own countries responsible first, then once they step up if you still think we're doing a bad job let us know. Until another country steps up in fighting terrorism, providing financial and humanitarian aid, and brokering peace deals...as well as trying to usher in new ways to help the environment, I don't see how anyone can bash us.

You realize that we failed to ratify the Kyoto Accords? Yeah: problem.

Originally posted by jaden101
As for your point on aid. The US should be paying the most. It is the country which exploits the world the most. It's the country which gives the worst trade deals to impoverished countries the most. Even it's supposed allies get ****ed over if it means the US can make more money. I also wouldn't get holier-than-thou over it either because as a % of GDP the US gives the least out of the g8 nations.

Capitalism's pretty awesome when you have enough guns.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
lol you bring up countries we've been involved with from a military standpoint without pointing out why we were. And yes the U.S. is making tons of money by supplying the U.N. with the money they used to buy over 50% of their supplies and vehicles with. We make a ton of money going on the other side of the world to maintain peace in countries that pose absolutely no threat to us, only to the European nations that they routinely bomb. And you're arguing that the U.S. doesn't do anything....despite the fact that it's a proven fact we give the most. I never said we give the highest percent per capita, I said we give the most by far. Far far more than any other country. You bash the U.S. but we are doing statistically the most. We give the most aid both in man power and money. You still have yet to tell me which country your from and what your country has been doing to help? You notice you rarely see Americans bashing any other country over them trying to help. We appreciate the help. Everyone bashes us because we're not living up to your standards? Hold your own countries responsible first, then once they step up if you still think we're doing a bad job let us know. Until another country steps up in fighting terrorism, providing financial and humanitarian aid, and brokering peace deals...as well as trying to usher in new ways to help the environment, I don't see how anyone can bash us.



If you haven't figured out which country I'm from you're clearly not the sharpest tool in the box.

Did I not just say they were US wars of aggression?. Meaning it was the US invading those countries purely for selfish gains.

As I've already said, the US should be giving the most money out. It's the richest country in the world because of the aggresive trade policies in enforces on the rest of the world. Lets look at a simple example. Cuba didn't want to adopt capitalism that the US wanted to force upon it. So what did the US do? Stopped trading with them. Not only that, the US also said it wouldn't trade with any country that did trade with Cuba.

Lets look at how the US treats its allies. The UK refused to import all it's bananas and coffee from US controlled growers in south America and the Caribbean and wanted to help other struggling economies. So the US banned imports of many UK products until they stopped trading with those other countries with non US controlled plantations. Thus meaning the US took away the primary export market from what are effectively third world countries.

I can't honestly believe you're trying to stick up for the US's enviromental policies. I'm just utterly astonished you would even have the gaul to try and make it seem like the US is a leader in that regard.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You notice you rarely see Americans bashing any other country over them trying to help.

That's a joke, right? America is at least as bad as everyone else about nationalism and insulting other countries, often Americans are much worse about it.

There are two separate issues here in my opinion. The first relates to the behaviour of states. In that context there is really no room for one state to act as the 'enforcer'; what is required instead is the fostering of an international community, as the UN does to some degree now, so that the accepting of international law becomes a norm from which no nation wishes to stray. In this regard adherence is very similar to the development of domestic societies where people increasingly follow more complex rules so that society can function in a more controlled, ordered way. Such adherence can, to some degree, be aided by force - but only when there is a clear breach of law, declared so by an official body (i.e. UN Sec Council). If force is used unilaterally outside this sort of context the only response is the creating of hatred and the regarding of that force as arbitrary (Iraq).

The other issue is that of non-state actors such as terrorists commit crimes within the international sphere. Here I submit a slightly different approach is required as sanctions and rulings will have no effect on such actors behaviour. Therefore a local law enforcement approach is far more appropriate with national and local police tracking down suspects and prosecuting them until national/local law albeit with the coordination of an international body (e.g. interpol).

Originally posted by jaden101
If you haven't figured out which country I'm from you're clearly not the sharpest tool in the box.

Did I not just say they were US wars of aggression?. Meaning it was the US invading those countries purely for selfish gains.

As I've already said, the US should be giving the most money out. It's the richest country in the world because of the aggresive trade policies in enforces on the rest of the world. Lets look at a simple example. Cuba didn't want to adopt capitalism that the US wanted to force upon it. So what did the US do? Stopped trading with them. Not only that, the US also said it wouldn't trade with any country that did trade with Cuba.

Lets look at how the US treats its allies. The UK refused to import all it's bananas and coffee from US controlled growers in south America and the Caribbean and wanted to help other struggling economies. So the US banned imports of many UK products until they stopped trading with those other countries with non US controlled plantations. Thus meaning the US took away the primary export market from what are effectively third world countries.

I can't honestly believe you're trying to stick up for the US's enviromental policies. I'm just utterly astonished you would even have the gaul to try and make it seem like the US is a leader in that regard.
Our trade embargo is in place with Cuba because of Fidel Castro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba
Polls in america show that 40% of the U.S. would be fine with lifting the embargo but Fidel only has a 6% favorable rating. He blatantly violated human rights, which is why in the U.S. if you can make it from Cuba to the U.S. we offer sanctuary. And you're European? So what has your country of origin done? Let's see the numbers and facts and whatnot? Because it's obvious they pale in comparison to what the U.S. has done. You may not like us, but i still don't see why you're trying to argue that the U.S. isn't doing a lot. It makes no sense when looking at the numbers that the U.S. is. And again the question is who do you think should step up...i don't think this was meant to be a bash the U.S. thread b/c your anti-american.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Our trade embargo is in place with Cuba because of Fidel Castro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba
Polls in america show that 40% of the U.S. would be fine with lifting the embargo but Fidel only has a 6% favorable rating. He blatantly violated human rights, which is why in the U.S. if you can make it from Cuba to the U.S. we offer sanctuary. And you're European? So what has your country of origin done? Let's see the numbers and facts and whatnot? Because it's obvious they pale in comparison to what the U.S. has done. You may not like us, but i still don't see why you're trying to argue that the U.S. isn't doing a lot. It makes no sense when looking at the numbers that the U.S. is. And again the question is who do you think should step up...i don't think this was meant to be a bash the U.S. thread b/c your anti-american.

Yes the US embargo is because Castro refused to be a US lapdog. Blatently violated human rights? Sorry what it the US doing on Cuban soil at Guantanamo bay?

Do you genuinely believe the US is having a net positive impact on the world? Given that it's the US economic idiocy that's leading to this current global recession and that it's US trade policy that keeps the majority of the world in poverty.

You can see the US's policy towards troubled countries perfectly in it's deployment of the military in the 1990's

1994: Invasion of Haiti...at the time the 3rd most deprived country in the world
1996: Liberia...troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1996: Bangui....troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1997: Albania...troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1997: congo....same thing
1997: Gabon...same thing
1997: Sierra Leone...same thing.

As for who I think should step up? I already know there are huge numbers of troops from other countries deployed under UN colours in the areas where the worst troubles are across the globe and I also know that they're not US troops...As I've already stated and as was in the news this week.



from

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/27/content_11086493.htm

In collaboration with Canada.

You stated earlier that the US isn't doing as much as it could because it's busy with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...hmmm...I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Originally posted by jaden101
You stated earlier that the US isn't doing as much as it could because it's busy with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...hmmm...I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

And now Pakistan too. Oy.

Originally posted by jaden101
If you haven't figured out which country I'm from you're clearly not the sharpest tool in the box.

Ahahaha!

Originally posted by Beyonder
America, as everyone, knows is seen as the world police, loved & hated. True, we are a superpower but should the responsibility of world peacekeeping be on our shoulders?

What other nation should take the intiative to resolve world conflicts and disasters?


As much as America does mettle in others affairs for it's own good/securing-of-resources/security, if America were to fall or completely withdraw into it's borders, those countries/peoples who shit-on and cry about America being a bastard would be crying for America to return/do something, as countries like China wouldn't be so benevolent.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as America does mettle in others affairs for it's own good/securing-of-resources/security, if America were to fall or completely withdraw into it's borders, those countries/peoples who shit-on and cry about America being a bastard would be crying for America to return/do something, as countries like China wouldn't be so benevolent.

I agree 100%. I'll take it a step further. What would the world be like without the US in it over the past 100 years? That's from WW1 to now. Try to imagine the good and the bad.

Originally posted by tsscls
I agree 100%. I'll take it a step further. What would the world be like without the US in it over the past 100 years? That's from WW1 to now. Try to imagine the good and the bad.

Something out of Thomas Moore, I would assume.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes the US embargo is because Castro refused to be a US lapdog. Blatently violated human rights? Sorry what it the US doing on Cuban soil at Guantanamo bay?

Do you genuinely believe the US is having a net positive impact on the world? Given that it's the US economic idiocy that's leading to this current global recession and that it's US trade policy that keeps the majority of the world in poverty.

You can see the US's policy towards troubled countries perfectly in it's deployment of the military in the 1990's

1994: Invasion of Haiti...at the time the 3rd most deprived country in the world
1996: Liberia...troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1996: Bangui....troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1997: Albania...troops deployed to evacuate US citizens only.
1997: congo....same thing
1997: Gabon...same thing
1997: Sierra Leone...same thing.

As for who I think should step up? I already know there are huge numbers of troops from other countries deployed under UN colours in the areas where the worst troubles are across the globe and I also know that they're not US troops...As I've already stated and as was in the news this week.



from

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/27/content_11086493.htm

In collaboration with Canada.

You stated earlier that the US isn't doing as much as it could because it's busy with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...hmmm...I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

You do realize that every single country you listed up above is well known for it's human rights violations? And we closed gitmo and all that once we got the ignorant redneck out of office. And as far as us being in a war with afghanistan....they harbored the fugitives who attacked and killed 2,974 civilians. Unlike other countries when the U.S. is attacked and civilians killed on that scale we deal with the problem. Admittedly bombing afghanistan back to the stone age wasn't the brightest idea (we had an ignorant conservative president at the time) but the terrorist hid there, the Taliban didn't want to give them up (the taliban also another government that violated human rights on a daily basis). And i will say that i vehemently disagree with the majority of the decisions of the former administration here. Unfortunately he was able to use fear and religion to get himself elected for that second term. He's also been voted i believe it was the worst president in U.S. history. We realize our shortcomings as a country and yet we still move on and try to help. While most of the world sits back and does nothing. And as for the U.N. the U.S. is the largest contributor for funds giving roughly 3 billion dollars a year for it. So, our soldiers might not be in U.N. colors everywhere fighting (because they go in under our control) no one elses would be either without us. Unless someone else wants to step up and foot the bill? Which is what this thread was supposed to be about before the America bashing started.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Something out of Thomas Moore, I would assume.
Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms

Originally posted by tsscls
Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms

The famous English one, not the famous Irish one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Something out of Thomas Moore, I would assume.
That was an ingenious comparison. Did you come up with that by yourself? If not where did you get it from?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The famous English one, not the famous Irish one.
Listening to it as I type. thanks for mentioning it.

Originally posted by tsscls
That was an ingenious comparison. Did you come up with that by yourself? If not where did you get it from?

I Googled Utopia and it jogged my memory.

I seem to have misspelled his name.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I Googled Utopia and it jogged my memory.

I seem to have misspelled his name.

Do you play at all? Guitar.

No, I used to play trumpet.

I play my imagination!!!!