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.
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.
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.
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.
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ghana, Jamaica, Nepal, Nigeria, Malawi, Malaysia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zambia.
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.
Re: World Police/peacekeeper: Who Should Step Up?
Originally posted by Beyonder
[B]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.
Re: Re: World Police/peacekeeper: Who Should Step Up?
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.
Re: Re: Re: World Police/peacekeeper: Who Should Step Up?
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.