Moral Issue of U.S. Involvement in Foreign Affairs

[tagradh]

It would be nice if other countries besides the U.S. had more of a presence in Iraq

I was just wondering how many soldiers were out there and noticed that during the invasion period there were 250,000 US soldiers and 45,000 UK.

Apparently the US army has around 1,400,000 soldiers and ours has roughly 200,000. Kinda suprised me that, proportionatly to our armed forces sizes, we sent more.

 

[Demonic viscera]

We have 0 troops in Iraq out of our 65,000. The big donut.

 

[AchrisK]

i often ask the question " would the States have invaded Iraq if 9111 hadn't occurred?"

I tend to think not. We went on the warpath against terrorism.

 

[skeptik]

Obviously the US government does not have a moral obligation to help other nations (barring assisting allies as per certain prior agreements). However, this is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not a country should provide assistance, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. We are not morally obligated to alleviate the suffering of those unjustly oppressed by tyrants and dictators, but, it may be in our best interest, economically, politically, diplomatically, ideologically, or some combination thereof, to do so. Of course this largely hinges on whether or not we are, at the time, in a position to offer such aide.

 

[Demonic viscera]

Obviously the US government does not have a moral obligation to help other nations (barring assisting allies as per certain prior agreements). However, this is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not a country should provide assistance, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. We are not morally obligated to alleviate the suffering of those unjustly oppressed by tyrants and dictators, but, it may be in our best interest, economically, politically, diplomatically, ideologically, or some combination thereof, to do so. Of course this largely hinges on whether or not we are, at the time, in a position to offer such aide.

I agree. But who's going to save the U.S. from it's own governments tyranny.

 

[Demonic viscera]

Then the U.S. would have to start eating royale's with cheese and use mayo on their fries and wear funny litle hats.

 

[rms]

did you just happen to watch pulp fiction today or something?

 

[The Ozzman]

did you just happen to watch pulp fiction today or something?

No, he's never seen Pulp Fiction

 

[skeptik]

I agree. But who's going to save the U.S. from it's own governments tyranny.

I think our own stupidity will take care of itself in due time.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think our own stupidity will take care of itself in due time.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[AchrisK]

The end is nigh!

 

[waif]

Disagreeing with your opinion or anyone else's doesn't make me a "fucking moron" but apparently you are too dense to understand the difference. Edit: You in no way, shape, or form, gave any reason why anything was wrong in my statement. Your response was on the intelligence level of a elementary schoolboy. Post some fucking solid facts and stop posting bullshit personal attacks and baseless opinions.

You want facts in a discussion of ethics? What happened to Mr. You Can't Disprove Creationism?
Now then:
"people get the government they deserve?" WHAT THE FUCK does that mean? Each person gets their own individual government? Or that each person shares responsibility for everything their group does, whether or not they support it? I'm assuming you didn't mean the first, since that would be ridiculous, but there is a third option, which is that you didn't actually think about it. Because if you think about it, obviously each person is not responsible for the actions of the group as a whole, they are responsible for their own actions. If the group slaughters 6 million jews, say, then each person is not responsible for the slaughter of 6 millions jews, but for whatever they did in - those who participated, those who let it happen, and those who worked against it all bear different moral burdens.
"If things suck on a grand scale the collective whole has no one else to blame except look in the mirror.....Instead most people are content with guilt tripping people more responsible than themselves"
I never voted for bush or mccain, and would vote against them if I could. But let's say McCain is elected and fucks things up with North Korea (or let's say Obama does the same, if you want, because in either case I never could have done anything about it) and we wind up in a nuclear war and Boston gets wiped off the face of the earth. So things suck, but it's our fault because we tried to stop it? We should have had the foresight to assassinate McCain or move to Canada?
Again, you clearly didn't think these through because they don't make sense.

My bad....SomAlia. I hope you are merely nitpicking on my spelling and not ignorant of past US peace-keeping disasters . Considering there was a pretty popular movie about the whole incident that would be very sad.

I'm well aware, although I did not watch Black Hawk Down. Regardless, you're being a moron about peace-keeping missions. Sometimes they fuck things up, but usually they help.

 

[Demonic viscera]

There is a huge difference what had went on in ww2 and what happens these days. For example ,the gulf war, Sadam invaded kuwait through brute force. This justifies the "the world" to step in and aid the invaded country. Germany did the same back in the day ,but thanks to Nevile chamberlin and the other poloticians, Germany didn't stop. Eventually the rest of the world did step in and we are not all speaking german now. What the U.S. did in recent years in Iraq was a knee jerk reaction to thier "war on terror". First off most other country's dissagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Second , the U.S. is actually invading another country , not liberating it. This is evident in the fact that they have been at it so long and they haven't liberated jack shit.
The only thing this invasion is going to do is make a few people in Iraq hatefull to the U.S.. which in turn may create even more terrorist groups. The thing about terrorism is that it is not an army , it is an idea. And no, i am not comparing the U.S. to germany. I'm just stating that the unlawfull invasion of any country is not a good idea. Besdides, i thought the U.S. had been keeping a stern eye out for Sadam all this time, Wouldn't all that espionage accounted for something since the gulf war. Oh say like ....knowing if he was harbouring WMD'S.

 

[Einherjar86]

For example ,the gulf war, Sadam invaded kuwait through brute force. This justifies the "the world" to step in and aid the invaded country.

When you say it like that it sounds fine. But it's not as though Saddam was sitting in his office one day and thought, 'You know, Kuwait sucks.' There is a long history behind why Iraq invaded Kuwait, and some might even argue that Iraq was justified to do so. After the Iraq-Iran war, Kuwait had the economic advantage over Iraq, and they definitely were not merciful in allowing Iraq to pay back their debt. There are dozens of things to take into consideration when evaluating another country's decisions. It's not as easy as "one country invaded another by force." We have to discern why. So often in foreign politics it seems that the "why" is forgotten.

 

[Dak]

You want facts in a discussion of ethics? What happened to Mr. You Can't Disprove Creationism?

#1 You can't, but what the fuck does this have to do with Evolution/Creation.Stay on topic sir.

No, individuals who did not support a particular "evildoer" are not directly responsible for the effects. But the statement " Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" applies here. Have we gotten to the point where the juggernaut of self-destructive US domestic and foreign policy can't be stopped? Probably. Something as broad as government IS going to be based on the collective and not the individual, however in this case you are part of the whole whether objectivily or not. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Sometimes they fuck things up, but usually they help.

Show me. Im fairly familier wih our peacekeeping attempts and I can't think of one where we contributed to eventual stabilization.

But it's not as though Saddam was sitting in his office one day and thought, 'You know, Kuwait sucks.'

Lolz

The only thing this invasion is going to do is make a few people in Iraq hatefull to the U.S.. which in turn may create even more terrorist groups.

So true. I've patroleld streets in Iraq and even though there my be some who are thankful Saddam's regime is over with, no one likes having guns in their face all the time. We are creating more terrorists than we kill by being over there. I have no hard feelings towards the guys setting IEDs etc because if the situation was reversed we would be doing the same damn thing.

 

[Dak]

I think our own stupidity will take care of itself in due time.

If you mean what I think you did this may be the first time I have agreed with Dodens on something. However, I am pretty sure our definition of stupidity is different.

 

[waif]

#1 You can't, but what the fuck does this have to do with Evolution/Creation.Stay on topic sir.

It has to do with you being a hypocrite. You keep whining about how one thing can't be proven, but in another situation you want hard facts?

No, individuals who did not support a particular "evildoer" are not directly responsible for the effects. But the statement " Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" applies here. Have we gotten to the point where the juggernaut of self-destructive US domestic and foreign policy can't be stopped? Probably. Something as broad as government IS going to be based on the collective and not the individual, however in this case you are part of the whole whether objectivily or not. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Evil also triumphs when good men fight against it really really hard, but whatever. Now, I should point out that you used the implied culpability of individuals in the situation of their country to justify leaving them to suffer. Now you're admitting that responsibility does not exist. What justification is there, then, to leave fellow human beings to die horribly when it's in your power to stop it?

Show me. Im fairly familier wih our peacekeeping attempts and I can't think of one where we contributed to eventual stabilization.

WWII.

So true. I've patroleld streets in Iraq and even though there my be some who are thankful Saddam's regime is over with, no one likes having guns in their face all the time. We are creating more terrorists than we kill by being over there. I have no hard feelings towards the guys setting IEDs etc because if the situation was reversed we would be doing the same damn thing.

So we agree on something at least.

 

[Dak]

It has to do with you being a hypocrite. You keep whining about how one thing can't be proven, but in another situation you want hard facts?

Evil also triumphs when good men fight against it really really hard, but whatever. Now, I should point out that you used the implied culpability of individuals in the situation of their country to justify leaving them to suffer. Now you're admitting that responsibility does not exist. What justification is there, then, to leave fellow human beings to die horribly when it's in your power to stop it?


WWII.


So we agree on something at least.

#1. Obviously you don't know what whining is. Something that can't have been witnessed vs policy issues are so fucking astronomically different I can think of no reason you would compare the two other than that you probably received a public education.

#2. Thousands of innocent people die every day around the world. Why haven't we moved into say, China, or Africa? Your missing my point entirely. It has nothing to do with "Man's moral responsibility". It has to do with carrying these "moral responsibilities" out under the umbrella of national government.

#3. You think WWII was a "peacekeeping mission?" OMFG.

#4. Amazingly enough I guess planets do occasionally align and shit.

 

[waif]

#1. Obviously you don't know what whining is. Something that can't have been witnessed vs policy issues are so fucking astronomically different I can think of no reason you would compare the two other than that you probably received a public education.

This was a discussion of ethics, which is obviously an abstract concept. Evolution and creationism are actually more grounded in reality and thus more subject to facts then ethics. Yet you reject evidence in a discussion of evolution and creationism yet demand evidence in a discussion of ethics.

#2. Thousands of innocent people die every day around the world. Why haven't we moved into say, China, or Africa? Your missing my point entirely. It has nothing to do with "Man's moral responsibility". It has to do with carrying these "moral responsibilities" out under the umbrella of national government.

I'm missing your point entirely because you changed your point entirely. Anyhow, I have previously stated that the UN is an excellent mechanism for regulating the domestic affairs of nations that cannot regulate their own. However, Africa is not a country (perhaps you meant Sudan?) and China is not going through a genocide. China is suffering from a mildly repressive government, overpopulation, lack of any concern for public health or safety, and other various other symptoms of China.

#3. You think WWII was a "peacekeeping mission?" OMFG.

You think the moment the fighting stopped all the Allied troops went home?
That was an off-the-top-of-my-head response. Why don't you read this?