When should the US ever get involved?

[shadow9d9]

Why is Darfur obviously less than a threat than Iraq was? No thread on either side=equal. Saddam's regime was weak as hell and continued to be hurt by sanctions for years. He had nothing, as it was well documented. A "threat" from a weakened third world country on the other side of the world? Ha!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: blackangst1


As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

Tell us something we don't know - you asked a hypothetical and we answered it. We all know how it is, an imperial presidency - you asked how it should be and justification for our views.

I understand. What do you do in the case of a multi-nation organization such as Abu Sayaff? Or Al Qaeda? Declare war on any country that harbors them? That would cause our "at war" countries list to pretty large.

Bankrupt them. Oil money funds them. Stop supplying dictators with unlimited money! If we heavily put efforts to get out of oil 8, 15, 20- years ago, none of this would be a problem and I will say the same thing in 10 years from now.

 

[SP33Demon]

Iraq =! genocide. In cases of genocide, we should step in. 500,000 to millions of people dead due to violence is ridiculous.

There are rumors that Saddam participated in murdering his own people, but we should have stepped in while/shortly after it was ocurring. There is no point to slapping someone on the wrist years after it has happened and then use it as an excuse for ulterior motives.

Rwanda/Darfur equated to massacres of unthinkable proportions, and I think we should have stepped in with a "surge". In addition, like PoW said, if another country attacks another preemptively then we should step in as well. Iraq did neither (massacre or attack a country) when we attacked it. Afghanistan is perfectly acceptable since AQ attacked us.

 

[BoomerD]

THe USA should NOT be the world's police department, nor it's savior, its defender, its army.

American troops should NOT be deployed unilaterally to any foreign soil except in defense of the USA.

Problems in Darfur? Let the UN handle it. Iraq? Let the UN handle it.

There's no reason that the USA has to LIKE how a foreign government runs its country...Hell, if you're looking for a country to invade over human rights "violations," look at North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, as well as many nations that the US considers "friendly nations."

The point at which the USA sends its troops should be set ridiculously high.

US corporation having problems with the local citizenry? Too fucking bad.

US Oil company getting fucked by the local government? Too fucking bad.

US Business interests are NOT something that should be protected by US troops.

The lives of foreign citizens in their own country should NOT be defended by US troops.

IMO, there's not a foreign nation whose citizenry is worth the life of a single American Soldier, Marine, Airman, of Sailor.

Defending the "homeland" is what the US Military should be used for. PERIOD.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
IMO, there's not a foreign nation whose citizenry is worth the life of a single American Soldier, Marine, Airman, of Sailor.

Defending the "homeland" is what the US Military should be used for. PERIOD.

So if a modern day genocide like the German Holocaust were to occur, you would say "let the millions die in an automated assembly line, fck it, doesn't affect me playing Halo unless they're on XBox Live".

Seems like Flight Maturity105 has been delayed at your airport.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BoomerD
IMO, there's not a foreign nation whose citizenry is worth the life of a single American Soldier, Marine, Airman, of Sailor.

Defending the "homeland" is what the US Military should be used for. PERIOD.

So if a modern day genocide like the German Holocaust were to occur, you would say "let the millions die in an automated assembly line, fck it, doesn't affect me playing Halo unless they're on XBox Live".

Seems like Flight Maturity105 has been delayed at your airport.

No, he would say "Let the UN take care of it." Oh, and thanks for the Nazi analogy. The thread would be incomplete without it. That and your poor attempt at witty sarcasm.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BoomerD
IMO, there's not a foreign nation whose citizenry is worth the life of a single American Soldier, Marine, Airman, of Sailor.

Defending the "homeland" is what the US Military should be used for. PERIOD.

So if a modern day genocide like the German Holocaust were to occur, you would say "let the millions die in an automated assembly line, fck it, doesn't affect me playing Halo unless they're on XBox Live".

Seems like Flight Maturity105 has been delayed at your airport.

No, he would say "Let the UN take care of it." Oh, and thanks for the Nazi analogy. The thread would be incomplete without it. That and your poor attempt at witty sarcasm.

We are the U.N., haven't you heard? I'm glad you got that joke, there's hope for you yet. Nazi analogy genocide is the closest thing we've had to Darfur/Rwanda in sheer number of deaths, except this time we chose to sit on our asses and play XBox and let 1.5 million people die.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BoomerD
IMO, there's not a foreign nation whose citizenry is worth the life of a single American Soldier, Marine, Airman, of Sailor.

Defending the "homeland" is what the US Military should be used for. PERIOD.

So if a modern day genocide like the German Holocaust were to occur, you would say "let the millions die in an automated assembly line, fck it, doesn't affect me playing Halo unless they're on XBox Live".

Seems like Flight Maturity105 has been delayed at your airport.

No, he would say "Let the UN take care of it." Oh, and thanks for the Nazi analogy. The thread would be incomplete without it. That and your poor attempt at witty sarcasm.

We are the U.N., haven't you heard? I'm glad you got that joke, there's hope for you yet. Nazi analogy genocide is the closest thing we've had to Darfur/Rwanda in sheer number of deaths, except this time we chose to sit on our asses and play XBox and let 1.5 million people die.

Oh.

 

[Genx87]

Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

This.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Don't forget about the US extermination program against the Native Americans, not to mention the numbers of our own killed during the civil war.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Keep in mind these events you listed happened before we had the military might to do something about it. Why did we intervene in Bosnia if genocide is ok? Text

Edit: Forgot about Tiananmen Square. Our arms embargo against China still stands to this day as a result of that massacre. Please explain that, it was during the first 6 months of Bush senior's admin. It's clear that we don't condone genocide (but this administration does).

Glad that Obama/Clinton admin is back. Maybe they'll actually do a little more in Darfur than Tweedle-dee and dum.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Don't forget about the US extermination program against the Native Americans, not to mention the numbers of our own killed during the civil war.

Either way my point was to show there have been several other genocides on equal or worse terms during or since the Nazi regime.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Keep in mind these events you listed happened before we had the military might to do something about it. Why did we intervene in Bosnia if genocide is ok? Text

Glad that Obama/Clinton admin is back. Maybe they'll actually do a little more in Darfur than Tweedle-dee and dum.

Considering what happened in that other shithole called Somalia under Clinton. I wouldnt hold out much hope.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Keep in mind these events you listed happened before we had the military might to do something about it. Why did we intervene in Bosnia if genocide is ok? Text

Glad that Obama/Clinton admin is back. Maybe they'll actually do a little more in Darfur than Tweedle-dee and dum.

Considering what happened in that other shithole called Somalia under Clinton. I wouldnt hold out much hope.

I'm sure they'll send some type of aid. BTW edited above post to reflect that even Bush senior embargo'd China for Tiananmen Square, which is why it's surprising that W hasn't done sht to help Darfur.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Genx87
Chinese killed about 30 million of their own through direct or indirect policies. Stalin purged millions of Soviets or staved the rest. Pol pot killed an estimated 2 million. And the North Vietnamese ransacked the south after the collapse killing thousands.

Don't forget about the US extermination program against the Native Americans, not to mention the numbers of our own killed during the civil war.

Either way my point was to show there have been several other genocides on equal or worse terms during or since the Nazi regime.

Gotcha...I was taking it as more of a general list of times when outside nations didn't get involved in a mass killing/civil war.

 

[piasabird]

We can not even control a few pirates.

We let people from Iran Blow up soldiers in Iraq and we never retaliated against Iran.

Do you think the people in Darfur will not turn into Muslim extremists when we start killing them?

We are too chicken to bar all food imports from China after all of their poisoning events.

After contaminated peppers form Mexico, what did we do about food being imported from Mexico?

We did nothing, and we will continue to do nothing.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

As long as you don't bitch when other countries do the same thing, and 20 million Americans die because of it. You're not special, or important, and ANYTHING you do to another can be done to you in return. America has NO right to anything if that conflicts with another nation's right to the same thing. Just remember that, and accept the consequences of your egocentrism.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

As long as you don't bitch when other countries do the same thing, and 20 million Americans die because of it. You're not special, or important, and ANYTHING you do to another can be done to you in return. America has NO right to anything if that conflicts with another nation's right to the same thing. Just remember that, and accept the consequences of your egocentrism.

What a foolish point of view.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

As long as you don't bitch when other countries do the same thing, and 20 million Americans die because of it. You're not special, or important, and ANYTHING you do to another can be done to you in return. America has NO right to anything if that conflicts with another nation's right to the same thing. Just remember that, and accept the consequences of your egocentrism.

What a foolish point of view.

If by foolish you mean 100% rational and inherently unbiased, then yep, it's foolish all right. Bad things happen because people think they matter. They don't.


ooops, forgot the 'un'. LOL

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

As long as you don't bitch when other countries do the same thing, and 20 million Americans die because of it. You're not special, or important, and ANYTHING you do to another can be done to you in return. America has NO right to anything if that conflicts with another nation's right to the same thing. Just remember that, and accept the consequences of your egocentrism.

Within your obvious distaste for my view, you have captured exactly why it is important to use the military in the way that we do.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

There are many competing "powers" that shape the world we live in. Do you want to live in a world of our own design (within the boundaries of our democracy, of course), or one designed by a competing power?

It takes an incredible amount of resources to fuel our way of life. If You allow your emotion to entirely dictate your approach to obtaining these resources, you will loose access to them. You do what you have to do, and use the military accordingly.

As long as you don't bitch when other countries do the same thing, and 20 million Americans die because of it. You're not special, or important, and ANYTHING you do to another can be done to you in return. America has NO right to anything if that conflicts with another nation's right to the same thing. Just remember that, and accept the consequences of your egocentrism.

Within your obvious distaste for my view, you have captured exactly why it is important to use the military in the way that we do.

I have no issue with that...if someone does something TO us (as in, what is ACTUALLY ours) I have no problem launching operations against them...as soon as a vote to do so clear Congress. The difference is, I'm not so selfish or ignorant as to claim that we have a right to anything outside of our borders, or that our right to something supersedes someone else's right to that same thing.

 

[Ozoned]

Our borders were not drawn with the type of viewpoint that you hold. I can't think of anything in history, even beyond our short one that would suggest that pacifism is a successful part of any workable ideology.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Our borders were not drawn with the type of viewpoint that you hold. I can't think of anything in history, even beyond our short one that would suggest that pacifism is a successful part of any workable ideology.

I saw nothing about pacifism, nor would anything in my posting history even vaguely suggest such a thing. If anything I'm a bloodthirsty, heartless bastard...so long as it's against someone who deserves it, and serving the cause of justice and not individual arrogance. The difference with me is that I refuse to be anything but equal in the implementation of justice. Most people are just greedy, selfish, worthless pieces of egocentric crap that think they're better or more important, and they're not. This can be expanded to the national level as well. Our shit stinks the same as every other nations, and every other persons.