Printable View
Hitler also thought that Germans were the decendants of Atlantians (I'm not kidding), and he thought it was their duty to once again rule the world. So his insanity probably contributed to wanting more power. My statement about Hitler was trying to make a point that people who we see as "evil" do not usually see them selves as evil. I don't think what Hitler did was right. You are right, I just want to make sure you get the point of what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by sogart
That is speculation, but it is a fact that the U.S. played a major role in actually stopping the Nazis. We both seem to agree that somebody had to do it. Europe was not handling it on their own. Hitler was taking over one country after another there. Stopping Hitler when he had only taken over a lot of Europe was a real bitch. It was the most destructive war in history, by far. 52 million people were killed. Imagine what things would have been like if the Nazis had taken over a few more continents and raised a few generations of conquered people turned Nazi at birth. It is the freakiest threat the world has ever had to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrycombs
Mr.Bush thinks that God talks to him. He thinks his country is the incarnation of Democracy and Liberty. He thinks that its the US's duty to rule (or "police" as people put it more politely) the world. Then he starts invading countries. I don't think he sees himself as evil. And then people wonder why foreigners may think of mr.Bush as evil. I don't know why...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrycombs
Europe would be Soviet? maybe not who knows...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (US,France,Britain,USSR) should try and stop other Great Powers (Germany, Italy) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Czech/kia, Poland, Austria etc etc?)
Be careful about what you answer...
So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (Russia, China, France, Germany) should try and stop other Great Powers (US, Britain) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc?)
I hope your answer is the same on both occasions...
PS: oh and I also agree that the Nazis were the freakiest world threat because they were not based in logic as the Great Powers before them (WW1 and before) that were also devastating in war but not so freaky.
Oh my god, Universal Mind, are you still trying to play the 'WE BAETEN HITLAR!!1"-card in every discussions about what the American Army does? Last time I checked, helping to beat Hitler does Not give you a "commit-war-crimes-for-free"-card.
it is not just bush that believes he should police the world. This is an implied job of every US president, just as Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Bush senior sent troops to Kuwait, and so on and so on. And bush doesnt think god talks to him, he just feels he is doing Gods will by "spreading freedom"
Although this may not be the right thing, our superpower feels it has to. I mean, who else will? I think we have the right to say "screw the UN" because the other countries have not done their fair share. The Somalian aid project is a perfect example.
Still, i say we fix Iraq as soon as possible and LEAVE and NEVER come back to the middle east. The reason they want to kill us is because we intervene to much. Agreed?
Why do most americans think that the UN is corrupted or doesnt take enough action? because there are debates and a lot of talking and politics going in there. It's not all emotional and "let's get them". The idea is that even if you are a "policeman" of the world you cannot decide on your own. Even in real life if I kill my neighbour, the policeman can't come and shoot me. There is law and procedure to be followed. We don't live in an international jungle where the strongest country has to keep everybody in line or they get bombed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
And about Iraq, I think the best thing you can do now is secure the oilfields and get out from the rest of the country. Seriously. It will take at least 20 years to be back to something like normal (Lebanon anybody?)
Umm NNNOOOOOOO! NO NO NO! It is not the job of the president! There is no implied job, where the heck do you get that! Its his job to police the US not any other country in the world. He is allowed to appoint ambassadors to go over and make deals with othe countries. If he wants to settle a dispute between two countries and send someone over to act an intermediator, he can do that. Thats an acceptable use of his powers. He is not supposed to be sending troops over though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
If congress orders him to send troops to another nation, then its his job to listen then do it to the best of his ability. There is no where that says his job is to police the world. And if there was some job(which doesn't exist), that would be something for congress to do not the president.
The United States has no right to intervene with any other country, ever. The UN needs to agree on what to do aswell, as Bush has shown, are president can be amazingly stupid. Also, sending troops to Kuwait was about money. There was a country that was being attacked, and 2/7 of the population was wiped out, and the US did nothing. We also aided a country in massacreing 30,000 people. The US shouldn't act like its the world police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
You apparently got really lost in this conversation. Your last sentence has nothing to do with anything. Somebody said we are a corrupt nation of evil, so I once again pointed out how we saved the world since we wanted to hurry up and do it before Holland took all of the credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
My answer to both questions is that it depends. I don't blanketly believe that the invasions of smaller countries should be stopped, but I believe that sometimes they should. I believe in doing so only when doing so would be justifiable. Overthrowing the horribly oppressive and terroristic Taliban and Hussein regime were justifiable acts, so it would have been immoral for anybody to militarily try to stop us. But when the Nazis were overthrowing governments in Europe for the sake of creating a worldwide fascist state and killing off all non-whites, crippled, homosexual, sick, and opposition, it was so unjustifiable and terrible that it would have been immoral not to stop them. You can't reasonably compare stopping the Nazi conquest to stopping the United States/Coalition from stopping the Taliban and Hussein regime. The first is justifiable. The second is unjustifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by sogart
Who should have stopped Hitler? Who should have stopped Soviet world conquest? Who should have freed Kuwait? At what point would the people, particularly women, of Afghanistan have obtained rights without the United States? How will the way of life in Iraq 100 years from now differ from what it would be if the future of the Hussein regime were in power? How will that difference affect the terroristic threat posed by the government? Who should overthrow the genocidal government of Sudan right now? How do you feel about U.S. charity, in the form of money, food, medicine, and technology for third world countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrycombs
So basicly its ok to decide how small countries should be ran. Instead of allowing them to work out their own problems we should kill off the leadership and place our own puppets in power to control and make sure they have freedom?
Yes. The people are not going to overthrow a government on their own when that government tortures and rapes people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of being oppositional. The need for overthrow in such situations is even stronger when the government is a threat to world security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Alric, that is exactly how I feel about the US.
Oh really? There have been cases like this where the PEOPLE of a country of that type of government have overthrown there government. Why was it so amazingly hard? There was this country called the USA that supplied that government with its weapons, there soldiers training, and even tried to secretly destroy that government. When Reagen couldn't leagely supply them any more, this thing called the Iran-contra affair happened. So the PEOPLE DID SUCCEDE! We tried our hardest to make sure they didn't, because we would lose MONEY!!! We didn't give a shit about Kuwait, we were losing MONEY because of Sadam. Its all about MONEY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Edit- oh, and about Hitler, Japan ATTACKED US! Of course we got into the war!
I knew you would agree to it. I also knew you would totally ignore the part about making it a puppet government, because your so brainwashed you actually believe we do this stuff for freedom. No we do it so we can control their government.
Its just like Iraq. We said we freed them yet we control their government. Why didn't we allow them to choice their own government? Because if we allowed them to split iraq into 3 countries it would cause chaos. The only problem is that is what they want, and they have chaos right now anyway.
We overthrew their government, we put in our own puppets to control them, and we call it freedom. What a sick joke.
Try to show enough decency to not initiate personal attacks just because you are losing the argument. If you act civil, I will too. If you don't, I will just report you because I agreed to not go off with hostility even in the face of people like you. If I were brainwashed, I would not have arguments like I am making. I would be chanting slogans and acting unresponsive. Also, go to the Religion forum and read all about how brainwashed I am. Your personal attack was weak, unfounded, and false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Now let's get into your actual arguments. Requiring a new government that we set up after much turmoil and expenditure is justifiable and necessary, and it is not proof that we only had one objective. However, that objective does result in our other objectives, such as the loss of threat and the spreading of democracy and prosperity over time.
Iraq is in a transition phase. Not having control of their government during the transition phase would be foolish and catastrophic. Our ultimate goal is to bring them to a point where they no longer need us. I don't believe they are there yet. Do you? What do you think would happen if we suddenly and completely abandoned them right this second? You are vastly generalizing when you say that chaos is what they want. Their future generations will be very glad that we got rid of the chaos. Will you?
Again... transition phase. It is fallacious to leap to the conclusion that it is representative of the entire future of Iraq.
The fact that healthy economy is a consideration is not proof that healthy economy is the only consideration. Please explain why you assume it is such proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrycombs
You used a lot of pronouns in your post, so I am not sure what people under the conditions I described freed themselves. Who are they? Also, what would have been your prediction on the year the people of Iraq would have overthrown the Hussein regime on their own, in the face of the conditions I described?
How does the fact that Japan attacked us prove that we were not a necessary part of the stopping of Nazi world conquest?
So then you admit that we set up the government and are controling it? I mean you just said that. Is there even an arguement here? They are free as long as they go along with what we say? What kind of freedom is that?
How can a country be free if they are not allowed to act as themself? Your basicly talking about a military occupation of a country and how it is acceptable as long as they eventually become free.
Transition phase, what a joke. Either they are free or they are not. Clearly they are not and so I have to ask the question, what the heck are we doing there?
As for the brainwashed thing, that wasn't a personal attack on you but on your idea. The idea that you can some how give freedom to people by occupying their country and building up their government. Its a brainwashed idea, not because I disagree with it but because its totally flawed down to the core.
How can someone be free in any sense of the word if your are controling them?
Transition phase.
Yet, they did just elect a prime minister. I don't think that was happening when Hussein was torturing the genitals of innocent old ladies.
As opposed to the US troops who were torturing the genitals of innocent people in Abu Ghraib? Which you so finely pointed out yourself earlier in this thread.
I am sure you will say that was a one time thing, though its more likely it justs the one time they got caught. That reminds me of the time people in the Bush administration said they were well within their rights to torture people up to and including sexually abusing children infront of their parents. Its getting kind of late but I really need to look up that quote. I will probably do that tomorrow morning because I am fairly sure you will say its untrue.
I don't know where you got any of that. I also don't see how it means the future of Iraq is not going to be better without the Hussein regime in power. Most importantly, I don't see how it means we shouldn't have removed an international terrorist government from power when they had a history of WMD terrorism and had violated our ceasefire for 12 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Does your concern for Iraqis extend to the innocent ones that were tortured and murdered by the Hussein regime, or just the criminal ones that had underwear put on their heads at Abu-Ghraib?
Basicly my point is that we are screwing them over, and we are screwing them over hard. Their country is in chaos, we are dumping radioactive waste all over the country in the form of depleted uranum. People are getting shot and blown up all over, people dying from cancer. Our own troops are suffering, coming back sick and injured. We are bankrupting our country.
And for what? The country is worse off now than under saddam. They are no more free now than then. And its been proven he didn't have any WMD and there was no link to terrorists.
I mean its all well and good to say saddam is scum. No one is going to argue over that. But what is your point? We can't kill every scumbag in the world nor should we try.
Nicaragua was the country that I was talking about. Look up the contras, and you will find they were a group of revolutionaries who were trying to destroy the new government of Naragua, after they fought a civil war with a harsh dictator supported by the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Also, Japan attacking us changes everything. When they attacked us, it meant they were going to try to take over the US. So of course we declared war! Germany also declared war on us I believe, not the US declaring war on them.
My point about the economy is that it doesn't matter if people are being killed, as long as we get money off of it then we don't care. Our government is not about freeing people, its about making money.
why was everyone getting so mad at me? I never said it was OK for a President to police the world, but it is an implied job.
Its all about MONEY? I think the wars cost more than the money we gain. Plus, i dont think bush is having trouble putting grub on the table.
I am an semi-isolationist. I just wish every country could become like the US, it would be SO awesome.
However, forcing freedom on people is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. Let these dictators kill their own people.
Btw, why do so many people here hate America? I have seen a lot of misconceptions and lies.
Personally I love america, which is why I feel compelled to speak up when the government does something stupid or wrong. And still no, policing the world is not an implied job. If a president thinks that it is, its because he a moron.
There is nothing to backup your statement other than the fact the last few presidents were idiots. I mean I could also say its an implied job for the president to expand his power but no thats not a job, its just what they do because their jerks. And I could say its an implied job of congress to find new ways to waste money but no they are just asses. Thats not a real job they have.
The government loses money, not Bush. But who gains money? Well, after we bombed Afganistan, the oil company Dick Cheney is a part of built a pipeline through the country they were no alowed to make before. This made a lot of money. I bet were doing the same thing in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Also, people are greedy. Bush and co. don't need more money, but they want it. Almost every president is guilty of trying to make money off of the law, even George Washington, and Lincoln let his cabinet members except bribes.
Also, America is a great country, with great people, and we have great potential to help the world. Currently, we are only contributing to the problem.