It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOREIGN: Intervention in other countries affairs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I think most will agree that meddling in other countries affairs has, in part, created the image of the USA as trying to control the world. This has directly led to events like 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, and an increasing hatred of America, while at the same time costing us BILLIONS of dollars to defend not only ourselves but whatever regime we happen to be propping up at the time.
 

The Libertarians have a simple answer to our problems that neither of the other parties seem to understand. It amounts to leaving other countries to fight their own battles and maintaining our Military for defense alone. The savings on overseas bases alone would be enormous.

Link of reference:
The Libertarian Party Platform



[edit on 4-8-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The Green Party would like to see "Preventive diplomacy, a strong economy and humane trade relations, as our best defense" (1). Proponents of Non-Violence, this party would like to see military spending cut and shift in focus to social programs (1).

Globally, the party is against war in Iraq (2). "The Global Greens call on all governments in the Security Council of the United Nations to oppose or veto any decision in favour of armed conflict (2)." The German branch of the party states "Krieg ist nicht die Antwort" - war is not the answer (3).

Instead of war help for social problems including AIDS and third world debt would be focused on. "Greens agree with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan: the U.S. must show global leadership in fighting AIDS(4)".


(1) Green Party Issues: Foreign Policy
(2) Global Greens
(3) Buendnis 90/ Die Gruennen
(4) New Release



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I disagree that we need to stop all intervention in other contries affairs on the basis of one fact. Our country is founded on the premise that we support the right of all people, no matter where they live, to live without fear for their own lives. We stand for the humanitarian treatment of all people, no matter what nationality, and, as our country is home to virtually all races, how do you think our citizens would feel if we abandoned their "homeland"? Their mother? Father? Brother? Sister?

Take the example of Sadam. He used fear to control that country. Fear to displease him. Fear to be on the street when he was in a bad mood...he might have shot them. The man killed family, surely they meant more to him than a "peasant".

As the watchdog of the world we have made a lot of sacrifices, but, they are one of the premises of the founding of this country. Yes, I am getting tired of being a pirah among the nations of the world, but, I don't hear much complaining that Sadam is out of power now.

It all comes down to the fact that we won't let it happen again on our watch. We won't stand around and let a holocaust happen again. We won't let people live in fear of their leader again. Not on our watch.

regs out...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
First of we have no right to impose our values on other people. I would die for my freedom, but I have no right to tell people they should feel the same way.
Second, people died in Iraq. They didn't ask to die. They didn't have a choice to let the bomb crash into their house.

How do you think they would have felt about this war knowing they would die? How many do you think were opposed to that war for that matter?

You talk about what our country was based on. Well, let me tell you something, our country was based on the people in America fighting for their freedom. How many Iraqis have you seen doing the same? Certainly not on the scale that America fought for its freedom.

Freedom comes from the people of that country. The people will decide what is right for them and they will rise to the occasion. We not only took the lives of innocent Iraqis, but we took their pride as well. We took their pride to fight for the freedom of their country.

We may bring them cell-phones, cars, and all the luxury items, but we will never be able to give them back the lives of their families and the pride of fighting for freedom.

If the people you speak of in America really felt that strongly about their homeland, they would have risen up and done all they could to fight for that country, just as the Americans did during the Revolutionary War. How many Americans did you see running to other countries and complaining that they should have helped them? While there was involvement of France I believe it is, the fact is that nothing would have been accomplished without the revolutionaries.

For these reasons, I advocate remaining out of the affairs of other countries.

Only in defense of our country, should war be undertaken. War is a serious matter to take lightly.

And I ask you this last question, How would this world be today if we attacked Russia during the Cold War?

On a side note, Saddam was bad, but he was no Hitler.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Tell that to the Turks. To them, he was their Hitler.

What do you say about the fact that many of them were to afraid to step out on a limb and cry "FREEDOM" and make a stand? Yes, their has been heartache to go along with freedom, but it is always so. Yes, our soldiers have been killed, but, imagine waking up, after a lifetime of oppresion, knowing that you don't have to live in fear of a maniac dictator anymore.

Just a little background for you. My cousin is leaving on October 12 for Mozul. He's an intel guy attached to the 25th Artillery Division. He's 8th and 2nd in case you were wondering. Since he's intel, he isn't even going in with a weapon. Now, yes, I am fearful for him. He's my cousin for pete sake. Yes, I wish this war was over. No, I don't like open ended wars. But, while GW is president, I will support him. My cousin is rarin to go. He's a bit nervous about the weapon thing, but, he's game.

You say that you would die for your freedom, but, will you put it all on the line for the freedom of people you don't even know?

regs out...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Yes, I would actually. But what right do I have to impose my values upon others. What do I say to the statement that many of them didnt cry freedom? A. that they believe it wasn't worth fighting for, and B. they had different values than we did, their religion, and didnt think the concept was relevant.

I know soldiers have been killed, but what are you going to do, Bush is the commander in chief and soldiers are meant to follow orders. I'm talking about civilians.

Another argument in support of the war is that we needed to protect one of the biggest oil reserves in the world from Saddam. Yet, why should luxuries be valued above human life.

Once again I say, when it was meant for Saddam to be taken out of power by the Iraqi people, it would have happened, and the people of Iraq would have been proud of their accomplishment. Look throughout history and you will see oppression being alleviated from the inside to help shape the national pride countries, regions, and people feel today.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The basic premise of this whole argument has its basis in the Monroe Doctrine


He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.


However, 1823 was a different time, a different world. Events occuring in Europe may not have impacted the America at all. Nor did we see the level of globalism that is the driving force of the global economy. What if America had held true to the Monroe Doctirne of Isolationism as people have advocated. Would Hitler have been stopped at France? Would SE Asia come under the spehre of Communism. Would Europe have suffered the same fate? While the interventions would have served our interest in the long term, but the Isolationist America may not have interfered untill a direct threat was presented.

People will argue that Americas war in Iraq was a different cause. I however feel the reasons for the war in Iraq mirror those in the above cases. The war ultimetly served Americas long term interests. (The debate about the reasons to go to war is a whole other topic IMHO). The Democrats will say that the war has made our security worse. Perhaps that is so at least in the short term, but taking the long view the change in Iraq will bring dividens in the future. Terrorism will require that the United States to take action far from its shores. This requires a global system of bases from which to defend our interests. The countries that the bases are located in recieve economic benifits from them. Its a sybiotic relationship. We cannot isolate ourselves and expect the terrorist to simply leave us alone. Nor will i sleep better knowing that fairweather allies like France and Germany are watching our backs.

America as the sole remaining superpower does need to take leadership on the global stage. However, the needs of the US needs to take priority over the needs of others. Bowing to the will of the UN or France is not the answerI am not calling for PAX Americana, far from it. However, America can, should, and Has acted in its best interests when required.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I agree with you that there are certain times we must defend our country even outside direct threats, for example, the Nazis. You say terrorists and I ask who or what is a terrorist? Terrorism is not a well defined enemy, what we should be doing is asking what group is presenting a well-defined threat. And even in that case, we have seen how quick we are to jump to conclusions. We must be more specific than that. As it is right now, I feel we are targeting all foreign peoples and in return they are targeting us. You can deny that, but people all over the globe cheer when Americans lose at the most mundane thing like basketball, or harass Lance Armstrong for being American. They feel threatened by the quick jump to conclusions.

Also, what interests are our priority? What interests should be our priority? We can't just say anything we want, we get. That will only lead to more conflict.

I ask you what should be important to America, and who or what is a terrorist. We need to have well-defined enemies, and PROVEN priorities that this country's infrastructure depends on. Much of that debate though will tip over to other topics like energy.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Also, what interests are our priority? What interests should be our priority? We can't just say anything we want, we get. That will only lead to more conflict.
I ask you what should be important to America, and who or what is a terrorist. We need to have well-defined enemies, and PROVEN priorities that this country's infrastructure depends on. Much of that debate though will tip over to other topics like energy.


I would submit that given that the worlds biggest proven oil reserves are in the Middle East, Energy and terrorism may be linked until those reserves run dry. Terrorists and thier networks are by design hard to pin down and quantify. The groups have shown an increasing sophistication and a level of compartmentalization that would have made the CIA or KGB proud. Its difficult to separate the wolves from the sheep. In this case, the logical choice is to go after countries that support of aid the terrorists. I agree, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. The Cold War, has easily identifed enemies for us to focus on. That type of large nation state threat is over and we find ourselves in a different era with different rules. Right or wrong one of the founding principals of the United States was "Manifest Destiny"



Manifest Destiny -- a phrase used by leaders and politicians in the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States -- revitalized a sense of "mission" or national destiny for Americans.

The people of the United States felt it was their mission to extend the "boundaries of freedom" to others by imparting their idealism and belief in democratic institutions to those who were capable of self-government.


This principal is evident in Europe were under the Marshall Plan, Germany became a model of reconstruction. This principal applies to the Middle East as well. By removing a hostile regime, hopefully we can have democracy flourish as we did in Germany after WWII. 911 may have been the soark that rekindled the sence of Manifest Destiny in some of us.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by regs
You say that you would die for your freedom, but, will you put it all on the line for the freedom of people you don't even know?

regs out...



I have

Would you feel the same about forcing democracy upon people that neither want it nor our help if, and IMO its not if but when, New York is vaporized? We are on the brink of paying a terrible price for our nation building, one that could easily make 911 look like a cake walk.

If we cannot stop TONS of drugs from coming across our borders how long do you thing it will be before someone sneaks in a nuke?

The ONLY long term solution to the problem is to leave the world to its on devices as a nation. This would not stop YOU from donating to the free the Iraqis fund or to free Sadam fund either, for that matter.

If a person is that concerened about his "homeland" let him return to it and fight for its freedom.


You know

Like we did.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Unfortunately it is difficult to force freedom upon an unwilling peoples. Nor does even a powerful country as the United States have the means to make the world universally free. The goals of making the people of the world free are noble ones, however, the United States is best served by providing the example of freedom to the world, not imposing its military will to force others into the same system.

It costs a great amount of money to keep an offensively focused military presence around the world. This money comes from the wallets of Americans. To take their means of support is in some way taking a measurable amount of their freedom away. No American should be stopped from individually contributing, monetary or otherwise into the freedom of another people. However, no American should be forced (through the tax system) to pay for another persons freedom. Force must be reserved for the defense of a direct threat to the existence of the country. We are unfortunate to possess horrible weapons of deterrence. Now that such exists and cannot be un-invented, they provide the most significant measure of deterrence against the threat of direct force against the country. Therefore a small defensive military is necessary and the treasure of the People may return to its proper place: to the people.

Insofar as we cannot abide a country imposing its will upon us, we cannot expect to do the same.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Mainer]

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Mainer]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I see foreign diplomacy and meddling in Internation affairs without request and under pressure as clearly being WRONG, and this country is to blame because we have been electing the wrong people, and on BOTH sides.

I see this countries leaders as being more concerned about other countries business and more important then worrying about the issues at home.

This tells me they don't care unless it's around election time then the santa claus attitude comes out and everybody gets a piece.
Why do people even care what the government has to offer?
What ever happened to doing things for yourself? I believe we were warned about this attitude by our founding fathers.. If you want to be fair to other countries without government pressure and economic/trade threats, LP would love to have you on their side.
Foreign diplomacy should only be used when two countries wish to work together, and both countries show an interest in eachother, pressure, and making diplomatic threats if they don't agree with the states is WRONG.
I know the US embassador threatened Canada if they legalized pot, they said that their economy could be hurt if they do not abide by their way.
This is wrong. A perfect example of meddling in other countries ways of dealing with their OWN issues.

Both parties deserve to be criticized on this issue, nobody expects their party to be perfect but this is a really important issue and other countries get turned off when this kind of bullying takes place. America is an outcast around the world because these parties don't know how to handle foreign affairs.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   


I would submit that given that the worlds biggest proven oil reserves are in the Middle East, Energy and terrorism may be linked until those reserves run dry.

Terrorists and thier networks are by design hard to pin down and quantify. The groups have shown an increasing sophistication and a level of compartmentalization that would have made the CIA or KGB proud. Its difficult to separate the wolves from the sheep. In this case, the logical choice is to go after countries that support of aid the terrorists.


1. I'd say that the problem is more the entagling of energy with the death of innocent civilians. No one is really to concerned about terrorists dying.
US Energy consumption:

At a congressional hearing today, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, Rebecca Watson told the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources that America faces an energy challenge because of a fundamental imbalance between energy consumption and domestic energy production.

www.doi.gov...

This is what we need to address. We should not value luxury over human life. The quest for oil in Iraq is a short-term solution for a long-term problem. We don't even know if the oil in Iraq was needed:

Nonetheless, oil consumption is currently increasing by only 1 percent per year, and consumption in 1999 was only 3.5 percent higher than it was in 1978.

www.studyworksonline.com... P1312_NAV2-96_SAR1309,00.shtml

EDIT: Energy Production-


-Alaskan oil fields will equal 60 years of Iraq imports
-We need renewable resources as well

Not a war

2. As you said, we must go after state-sponsored terrorism and even in that case, we should not attack until provoked. Right now, we are attempting to prevent destruction that may occur in the future. The problem, we are not pyschics. You can say all you want, the future will prove me right, but for every time you are right you will be wrong.

And I ask again, what or who is a terrorist, is a state of mind? Currently, that is all I see it as...And I say, if a terrorist were to attack America and were smart enough to become successful, would they jump up and down screaming their intentions. No, the true terrorists will be those we don't even know exist.

The war is futile and is more destructive in many ways, than it is beneficial.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join