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.

 

[US]Tell me why our over seas agenda is so bad.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmperorXyn

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by EmperorXyn
 


But just like in our personal lives, we cannot help someone that doesn't want help and we should not force our "help" onto them.

The greatest rewards in life come from the battle to achieve that reward. If it is given to you.....it was never yours.


That may be true to Iraq, although actually people probably did want help at that time until the Taliban started murdering everyone.

But we do help alot of countries break freedom from corrupt government and such. If it was in other countries best interest, ect, China, Russia, don't you think they would be more involved themselves?? They don't care. That's the problem!


China and Russia ARE involved with these people. They trade with them and exchange diplomatic gestures. That's free market capitalism. To get involved in their internal affairs without expressed consent is an act of war and moraly reprehensible.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmperorXyn
Mass murder for profit? Let me guess your saying Iraq? You do understand Sadam killed and raped people for absolutely no reason? You do realize we are heroes for saving that country from becoming a current day Iran.

Your next argument would be oil. We hold the largest reserves of oil here in America. Also, Iraq, has bids for their oil fields from other countries like Russia and ect, we get minimal oil from their.

Now say your argument.




Troll, much?

Are you really comparing Iran to Iraq like that?? A dictatorship as opposed to a republic (as flawed as their government--like OURS--is). A country with a large degree of tolerance, modernization, and people living their lives as they choose, working, going to school, visiting museums, and listening to music and enjoying a lifestyle VERY MUCH LIKE US?!?!?!

Please educate yourself.

You do realize that under Saddam the people had electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, jobs, etc, and now their country is a ruined warzone where the constant violence (caused by and because of the US and those who don't want us there) is a daily threat just from walking down the street?

Saddam might have been a bastard, but he provided for his people in a large number of ways, and we stirred up the nest and can't fix it.

Do you think the people whose families were accidentally killed, whose houses were accidentally bombed by the US, who lost everything and their way of life and had their lives turned upside down look at us as heroes?

Would you look upon as heroes a country who invades your own, drops bombs on your house, destroys your way of life because they think theirs is better for you, and because they dislike your president???

We are only heroes in our egotism.

And if large number of (mostly religious conservatives) had their way they would turn the country (the USA) into the nonsecular opposite of the extremism that you perceive exists in these countries you claim we are heroes for "intervening?"

BTW, it's a DIFFERENT CULTURE. It's arrogant to think they would be better off or should be like us.

*smh*


edit on 31-8-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
world is far worse due your countries mass murder for profit ... only thing u.s brings the world is pain ... destruction.. death... oppression and tyranny ...


It's funny how the knee jerk anti U.S. rhetoric conveniently ignores the billions in foreign aid, global disaster relief, technological innovation, scientific contributions and educational opportunities etc. that the U.S. contributes for the betterment of the world.

If the U.S. was truly the global tyrant that you disingenuously choose to portray we would not practice soft international diplomacy but instead force our will upon others through military force alone and there would be little to stand in our way.

The post WWII world has been a time of relative peace, there has not been a direct confrontation between the major world powers (and the catastrophic loss of civilian life that accompanies such events) for 67 years which is a record in modern history.

The restraint shown in the limited confrontations the U.S. has become involved with in recent history only reinforce the fact.

When China intervened on behalf of the young DPRK in 1951 Korea, Harry Truman kept the war contained to the Korean peninsula rather than expanding the war into China or resorting to nuclear weapons despite tremendous military pressure to the contrary.

The whole debacle of Vietnam would have been over in 1965 had we ignored world convention and strategically bombed the North as was made painfully evident from the 1972 linebacker II campaign that forced the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to ratify the Paris Peace Accords.

When the NVA violated the treaty and invaded the south in 1975 (two years after the complete U.S. military withdrawal) the U.S. did not a initiate punitive bombing campaign and left the destiny of Vietnam to the Vietnamese.

U.S. intervention was pivotal in reigning in the Israeli counter invasion of Egypt and Syria while ultimately brokering a peace agreement that saw the Sinai being returned to Egypt along with a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel.

The U.S. did not rise to the bait and attack Iran when members of the Islamic revolution stormed the U.S. embassy and took our citizens hostage nor have we expanded the multiple confrontations in the Persian gulf in retaliation for Iranian attempts to interfere with global shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. defeated the communist coup and Cuban invasion of Grenada, reinstated the Grenadian constitution and immediately withdrew, leaving Grenada to its citizens.

The U.S. removed the tyrant dictator Manuel Noriega from power and returned Panama to a civilian constitutional government.

The U.S. expelled the Iraqi invasion force from Kuwait, destroyed the Iraqi military with minimal civilian casualties and returned Kuwait to its rightful government. Of note is that the U.S. resisted the temptation to go beyond the U.N. mandate and expel Saddam Hussein from power.

U.S. peacekeeping forces attempting to bring order to lawless Somalia were killed and their bodies paraded through the streets. Had the Rangers in question been the ruthless shock troops some imply they would have indiscriminately opened fire and saved themselves, killing hundreds in the process.

The U.S. led NATO coalition stopped the Serbian ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Bosnians and brought relative peace to the Balkans.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq removed the tyrant Saddam Hussein from power and the U.S. military has since withdrew, leaving the destiny of Iraq to the Iraqi's. It is hard to argue that U.S. motivations were economical as China is receiving the bulk of Iraqi oil production.

The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is slowly bleeding the U.S. yet we remain engaged with the hope that a successful secular Afghani government will eventually mature and become self sufficient or would you prefer the Taliban were returned to power?

In short the U.S. has done more to secure global peace and security and paid a strong price in the blood of her young men. A consistent theme that I see with most that denigrate the U.S. role in the world community seems to be a painfully obvious ignorance of modern history.

Some of you should make an effort to educate yourselves before you repeat the anti U.S. rhetoric trumpeting the evil of the country that protects your right to be an ill informed jerk.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmperorXyn
So are you saying Sadam was a good leader? Was it better if we left them alone? Do you think a civilized earth we want is better with him there?


Saddam was the leader those people deserved.

The US has no business running around the world overthrowing governments it doesn't agree with. If Saddam was so bad, his own people bore the responsibility for overthrowing him. Only a small faction within the country was motivated enough to try so I have to assume that the people of that country weren't THAT dissatisfied with him.

You also shouldn't believe all the propaganda you read in the MSM. They've been spoon feeding the American public propaganda against a whole laundry list of rulers who have done nothing more than oppose US policy or financial dominance. There's two sides to every story; the US just gets to have its side told more often because the winners write the history books.

Take a look at what you've been taught about Gaddafi compared with the truth about what he did for the people of his country:




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by EmperorXyn
 


I wonder who it was that supplied Saddam with weapons for him to carry out acts of murder?

Surely not America...


Your foreign policy sucks...Just face it.


Why not do a little research into who the primary arms suppliers to Saddam's military were before falling in with the crowd and posting B.S.?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Wow...well done to America for not getting involved...after getting involved (when you shouldn't have been involved in the first place) in regards to the Vietnam War.

Confusing?


Nobody denies the amount of aid America gives to other countries, but when you see how much conflict has also been caused by America in the last century...

Say no more.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by EmperorXyn
 


I wonder who it was that supplied Saddam with weapons for him to carry out acts of murder?

Surely not America...


Your foreign policy sucks...Just face it.


Why not do a little research into who the primary arms suppliers to Saddam's military were before falling in with the crowd and posting B.S.?


So America did not supply Saddam in any way, shape or form? GTFO...

Don't be blinded by your patriotism..Anybody can list the good things about their country till they're red, white and blue in the face (pun intended).

Had a good chuckle though at your attempt of trying to explain the Vietnam War...to a Vietnamese person.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I could list and will list on request many situations Sadam hurt its own people for his self gain(his country) but nonetheless still wrong!!

Sadam was no leader nobody ever deserves!!! At least not to developed countries standards(get the hint).

Vietnam war? Seriously? Lol

It's kinda funny some of you say we cannot police ourself, yet you stand up for a guy who killed thousands and thousands and you think his intentions are good. What a joke.
edit on 31-8-2012 by EmperorXyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 



yaaawwnnn.... spare me the propaganda speaches ... Ive witnessed firsthand the results of u.s foriegn policy ... put way too many people back together and buried far too many that experienced american foriegn policy ... there isnt enough soap in the world to wash the blood off america's hands ...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


i was going to refrain from posting in this thread as there are alot of things one should not say in civil discourse that i would like to say to some members posting in this thread, however you saved me the trouble, in a very civil, well thought out, intelligable manner, that i lack sometimes.


star for you, very nice!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


I will ask you this question since you seem to be informed.

Which countries in the history of this planet were the most powerful in their sphere of influence that didnt abuse their position to a far greater extent that America?

Because as a history buff ( more specifically war history, as it seems to be mans crowing achievement unfortunately) I can tell you, compared to any other country in history with the kind of clout America carries in our time, all the others were way way way worse by factors.

So just name which country we should model our foreign policy off of, since there are obviously so many better examples to follow than ours?


Also, America invested alot in ending the last 2 wars the world brought to our door step. We have a investment in blood and lives to protect the peace we paid a high price for. If all you other fools would get some act right, we would never be in the position we are now, we would still be a "power" in the world, but not the lone super power.

I know stop raping and killing and causing genocide, all the while asking where America is to save you, and we will stop saving your saorry asses from your own ignorance.

Next time a world war starts, once again it wont be America that starts it, we will though, once again have to end it with our citizens lives. Just remember, America didnt make this world, we are one of the youngest countries on it, We are just dealing with # from every corner, somtimes it splatters when it hits the fan.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Wow...well done to America for not getting involved...after getting involved (when you shouldn't have been involved in the first place) in regards to the Vietnam War.

Confusing?


Nobody denies the amount of aid America gives to other countries, but when you see how much conflict has also been caused by America in the last century...

Say no more.


You are correct, the effects of post WWII U.S. involvement in all of Indochina is an extremely complex subject that cannot be accurately summed up in a brief post on an Internet message board.

Regardless of whether the Western leaderships were justified or not in their concern over communism, the perceived threat was something multiple presidential administrations took very seriously.

A quick recap for anyone not familiar with the history...

Preceding any U.S. involvement, Vietnam had been brutally subjugated as a colonial French holding for a century until WWII when the Vichy French government gave control to Imperial Japan.

The Japanese exploitation was even more brutal than the French,instigating an indigenous revolution which was almost totally funded by the U.S. through nationalist China.

American interest in Vietnam goes back to FDR and his insistence that post war Vietnam be free from any colonial rule.

Post WWII U.S. involvement was more a position that was reluctantly forced upon us as Vietnam declared independence, a position the U.S. supported however Britain (to protect her interests in India) insisted post war administration south of the 17th parallel was returned to France.

During the next few years the world became radically polarized, East vs. West. When the French withdrew in 1954 the communist Viet-Minh who had been allies were now considered hostile due to very real fears of communist aggression (East vs. West ideologies and perceptions is a huge topic by itself).

Using the analogy of the domino theory, the U.S. found itself in a position where in order to prevent a hostile communist takeover of the far east, it would have to fund what would turn out to be a long succession of incompetent and corrupt governments.

By the early 1960's JFK famously "drew a line in the sand" to halt further Communist expansion. This included Vietnam where a popular communist insurgency was gaining momentum under a brutal and unpopular U.S. backed government.

Lyndon Johnson famously said of Ngo Dinh Diem when questioned by the press on Kennedy's support of the unpopular Diem , "He's the only boy we've got over there".

By the Gulf of Tonkin incident, direct conflict was probably inevitable although there is no question Lyndon Johnson seized the opportunity as justification to escalate the conflict with direct U.S. involvement.

Thus begins a protracted conflict ultimately killing 58,000 Americans and arguably a million Vietnamese. The political objectives of 1964, that North Vietnam cease aggression towards the south as well as recognise the south as a sovereign state, were finally achieved 8 years later with the Paris Peace Accords.

The reason the conflict lasted 8 years was because of U.S. restraint in trying to fight a "humane" war constrained by boundaries and conditions, this is absolutely proven by the results of the 2 week unrestricted bombing campaign of December 1972 and the immediate North Vietnamese response to agree to peace.

America provided billions of dollars in economic aid to the South Vietnamese over the duration of our involvement.

My point is that U.S. involvement was not as black and white as some would claim. It certainly wasn't a product of imperial ambition or territorial aggression and was rooted in a sincere belief that we were protecting freedom and defending individual human rights.

Obviously the final result was much more ambiguous and in the end the Socialist Republic of Vietnam seems to be shaping up to be a success story although it is important to remember that the North Vietnamese killed literally millions of people in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon.

With that in consideration do you still feel that the U.S. foreign policy of the time was wrong for taking the position it did?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by EmperorXyn
 


I wonder who it was that supplied Saddam with weapons for him to carry out acts of murder?

Surely not America...


Your foreign policy sucks...Just face it.


Why not do a little research into who the primary arms suppliers to Saddam's military were before falling in with the crowd and posting B.S.?


So America did not supply Saddam in any way, shape or form? GTFO...

Your question was not if the U.S. supplied Saddam "in any way shape or form". Your (rhetorical) question was...

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by EmperorXyn
 


I wonder who it was that supplied Saddam with weapons for him to carry out acts of murder?

Surely not America...

The vast bulk of the Iraqi army was Soviet manufactured and supplied hardware. At the start of the Iran/Iraq war the UN placed a unilateral arms embargo on both Iran and Iraq in an effort to force the belligerents to make peace which put an end to direct Soviet resupply.

In its bid to limit Iranian revolutionary influence in the Persian Gulf, post 1982 the U.S. supplied Saddam with economic aid, military intelligence, and some questionable dual use technologies. The U.S. also presumably helped to covertly circumvent the UN arms embargo and supposedly facilitated a supply of spare parts for the primarily Soviet produced military hardware.

So yes, the U.S. did briefly provide aid to Iraq with military applications during the Iran/Iraq war however it was primarily the Soviets who built the Iraqi war machine. Other notable direct contributions were also made by France,China, Brazil and Germany (who have been accused of providing the dual use technology Iraq used to develop its chemical weapons program).

To say that it was the U.S. which supplied the weaponry which enabled Saddam's regime to commit the atrocities it has been accused is a disingenuous over simplification.


Don't be blinded by your patriotism..Anybody can list the good things about their country till they're red, white and blue in the face (pun intended).
Contrary to the vocal minority who try to to vilify the term, patriotism is not a bad word. Unless you can specifically refute any of the points I have made I don't think you can truthfully say my opinion is blinded by anything


Had a good chuckle though at your attempt of trying to explain the Vietnam War...to a Vietnamese person.
That is a coincidence, I am an American person.

What are the odds?

Considering the Vietnam War involved both Vietnam and America, between the two of us there shouldn't be any questions about what happened.


Please see the above post and feel free to point out my error.

edit on 1-9-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Sounds to me like a lot of Americans want to police the world and truly believe they have a right to do so just because they give aid (like most other countries).



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
North Korean’s wish we would invade their country but we will not as long as China backs them. US forces are the only thing stopping China from invading Taiwan because of our presence in the pacific if we were to back out of that region you can bet on Japan developing nuclear weapon as a deterrent to China and North Korea would definitely invade South Korea.

Without US intervention in places like Kosovo and Bosnia there would be more genocide going on in that region. The US has the most powerful military and the world looks to us to keep order when talking fails. If other nations in the U.N. were not so week we wouldn’t need to. I would prefer the rest of the world grow a backbone and help in this responsibility but they are more than happy to have America be the one that does all the heavy lifting and take all the criticism.

How long did the European nations sit on there hands and let the travisty that was Bosnia go on? Who had to step in and put a end to it?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The Us overseas Agenda isn't bad for the EU,China, and some arab countries. Stability is one element where the EU gets most of its oil from the middle east and that has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iraq war.

Next up China has been another one with sweet deals for oil. Opec is raking in billions.China is getting the raw materials they need to sustain it's economy while the Us does all the work.

International trade is another part of that equation and the globalization of a one world economy where only one natural resource is needed to run it

People scream "war for oil" but which is a lie if the US pulled out of the rest of the world tomorrow the rest of the world would rejoice but they would also say oh crap.

Watched a documentary on netflix titled the world without the US made in 2008 some interesting points in there that could be debated on ATS for sure.

The Us pulls back China will takes it's place, other countries will try and that is a darker world than people realize.

People would love the fact if the US did Isreal would fall, radicalization would be rampant in the middle east China doesn't have the military power to ensure regional stability as in sea or air power, being able to move in at a moments notice.

The Eu doesn't have the capacity after decades of outsourcing their national defense or the money but then agian neither do we.

The Us military is outdated,undermanned, and in dire need of resupply,restructure,if we are to have any future in the world.

We have our own internal problems to be dealing with as per immigration,drugs,spending off a fiscal cliff. the manufacturing base is no longer existent that thing that "won" WW2.

This country has too many internal problems to deal with however that is not to say we should withdraw from the world as history as shown time and time again.

Crap happens and when it does it has been avoidable with proper foresight.
edit on 1-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Agreed and starred!

The U.S. foreign policy isn't perfect, however neither is anything else especially this world of ours. Blaming America for all the worlds evils is just plain silly, the world had every problem they do now, only much worse, and on a much larger scale, for all of recorded history, before America came along.

America is not perfect, America can't possibly live up to the expectations of everyone on earth at the same time, believing so is foolish. No entity that has ever existed can be all things good to all people at the same time. As one mans fun weekend out with the boys, is anothers wicked crime spree.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The whole world is a cess-pool.

I'm american so I can say what I know of why we went to "police", not war. America hasn't been to war since WW11, and anybody who thinks that we didn't know that the Japanese were coming to Pearl Harbor, is an idiot.

We've gone to "police" for oil, natural resources, drugs (Afghanistan, Vietnam), and trade routes, ( Bosnia).

We continue to create havoc in the South American countries and Mexico for illegal drugs, which could be legalized with little to no effort, and end the blood-shed in those countries.

But for the gov't it would mean little to no money for illicit drug trades.

The time for all of this to end is short, I think.

We will destroy ourselves through individual greed, ignorance, and immorality.

America is going communist.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
neo makes some good points, but i don't think the majority would criticize the U.S. where there was genuine intervention required, and there are more countries than just the U.S. who help.

what a lot of people are disgruntled about is the lies that took not just the U.S. into war but other countries to, the lies and some questionable decisions or actions leading up to them in the past. but not everything America does is bad.

but i believe a lot people around the world and in America itself just don't believe America has the right to go around overthrowing whoever it feels like just because they don't like them.

if America wants to police the world, then expect criticism when it goes wrong or if it was for questionable reasons. you cannot just go around dictating to other nations and then call it anti Americanism when they are unhappy about it.

people need to put themselves in the other persons shoes and ask themselves if they would have a problem with china doing the same to them. I myself don't care which country is doing it I would think it was wrong regardless.
edit on 1-9-2012 by lifeform11 because: typo



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Because as a history buff ( more specifically war history, as it seems to be mans crowing achievement unfortunately) I can tell you, compared to any other country in history with the kind of clout America carries in our time, all the others were way way way worse by factors.

So just name which country we should model our foreign policy off of, since there are obviously so many better examples to follow than ours?


Also, America invested alot in ending the last 2 wars the world brought to our door step. We have a investment in blood and lives to protect the peace we paid a high price for. If all you other fools would get some act right, we would never be in the position we are now, we would still be a "power" in the world, but not the lone super power.

I know stop raping and killing and causing genocide, all the while asking where America is to save you, and we will stop saving your saorry asses from your own ignorance.

Next time a world war starts, once again it wont be America that starts it, we will though, once again have to end it with our citizens lives. Just remember, America didnt make this world, we are one of the youngest countries on it, We are just dealing with # from every corner, somtimes it splatters when it hits the fan.




I would suggest that you spend more time in the stacks for your knowledge of history.

More than a few US politicians/businesses badly wanted into both World Wars. Prior to US entry into WW2, FDR even had the navy provoke Nazi subs. These wars profoundly changed the future of the US with the rise of the military-industrial-complex, the National Security State and the Bretton Woods system of monetary management.

Fedgov is waging "war" today with both military action and political/financial/economic tools. Fedgov has overthrown countless governments, installed vichy puppets and stolen their resources . Massive bribes have been used to corrupt the major players and have allowed the US to largely escape international condemnation for their absolutely criminal conduct under the "war-of-terror". The US, as a Security Council member, has also shielded Israel from international action for their crimes against the Palestinians.

Up until recently, fedgov was largely content to lay waste to foreign lands. Now they've set their sights on US. Soon, we will find out first hand what it means to live under the heel of the jackboot that fedgov has forced on foreign lands.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join