Moral Issue of U.S. Involvement in Foreign Affairs

[Einherjar86]

If a huge genocide were to occur here, would we want help from other countries? I would say yes

We probably would, but that has nothing to do with whether it's our moral responsibility.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

We have a moral responsibility to stop genocides, etc. - but we can't do so at the risk of our economic strength. The abhorrent clusterfuck in Iraq shows that even helping a single country can severely hobble or endanger us economically if we're handling it primarily on our own.

 

[genocide roach]

my one and only comment:

what happens over there, matters over here. turmoil over there, creates turmoil over here...
~gR~

 

[Dak]

Seeing as how Dakryn's entire debating strategy revolves around categorically denying things, that shouldn't come as a surprise.

Can you be more vague?

I do deny arguements that amount to nothing more than media spin, manufactured "truth", or empty rhetoric. Stop posting opinions you got gift-wrapped from the talking heads and I'll stop arguing with them.

Fuck off.

If a huge genocide were to occur here, would we want help from other countries? I would say yes

So WHAT THE FUCK if we wanted help, no other country has an OBLIGATION to help us. I firmly believe people get the government they deserve. 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. Again, this arguement boils down to people refusing to take ownership of their problems.

Also I should back up on the Iraq thing. I overlooked the key detail which actually did give us an obligation in specifically the Iraqi situation, since it was the US who put Saddam in power to start with because we were already meddling in things that weren't our business years ago. If we were dumb enough to put him in power we should clean up the mess we caused.

Edit: Missed this gem

We have a moral responsibility to stop genocides, etc. - but we can't do so at the risk of our economic strength.

So we have moral responsibilities only when its convenient?We either DO or we DON'T. You're logic is fucking amazing......

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So we have moral responsibilities only when its convenient?We either DO or we DON'T. You're logic is fucking amazing......

I agree, my logic is quite amazing, because it happens to account for the fact that if we were to help everyone in trouble right now, we'd quickly go broke, and that would result in us being able to help fewer people in the long-term. It's not about whether it's "convenient" for us, for christ's sake. What's the point of destroying our ability to relieve foreign crises in the long-term by going broke relieving the current ones?

 

[Dak]

I agree, my logic is quite amazing, because it happens to account for the fact that if we were to help everyone in trouble right now, we'd quickly go broke, and that would result in us being able to help fewer people in the long-term. It's not about whether it's "convenient" for us, for christ's sake. What's the point of destroying our ability to relieve foreign crises in the long-term by going broke relieving the current ones?

No disagreement in general with this entire statement. But your earlier statement implied that we had a moral obligation to help other nations...but only when its convenient, convenient being when it doesn't hurt us financially/militarily. You can't have it both ways, not to mention there is no such thing as a non-conquering war that doesn't compromise the original ecnomic or military standing of the nation involved. "Peace-keeping" missions do nothing more than shoot us in the foot in numerous ways, and usually solve nothing. (Anyone familier with Somolia for example?)
Bottom line is we have no moral obligation to ease any foreign crisis, unless it is one we created.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well I guess we could argue back and forth all day over what the definition of a moral obligation is, and when we are morally obligated to relieve a foreign crisis. All I'm saying is that there's something wrong when there's a genocide going on in another part of the world, we have more than enough resources to step in and stop it, and yet we do nothing.

 

[Dak]

Well I guess we could argue back and forth all day over what the definition of a moral obligation is, and when we are morally obligated to relieve a foreign crisis. All I'm saying is that there's something wrong when there's a genocide going on in another part of the world, we have more than enough resources to step in and stop it, and yet we do nothing.

I completely agree that those who can should do something about it, just not organized/endorsed/funded by the government. If someone wants to organize a relief effort or a militarized effort completely on a private level then by all means go for it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How the hell would that even work?!

 

[Dak]

That's for whoever wants to assist bad enough to figure out. To claim it would be so much more difficult than having the Gov't do it is a non-issue.

Our military's ONLY legitimate purpose is the defense of the United States of America. Not play world police.

 

[waif]

I don't think it's ever morally wrong to intervene in another country to stop systematic torture or killing. The problem is that it's largely infeasible for a single country to assume such a responsibility. Efforts to relieve widespread human rights abuses need to be multilateral, that way a single country doesn't end up in a situation like Iraq where it's committed to bleeding out trillions of dollars in order to avoid pulling out and creating a power vacuum in which millions suffer and die.

This is pretty much exactly what I said, except that I think it's wrong for one nation to intervene in another nation's affairs. But for the group to do so is appropriate.

I do deny arguements that amount to nothing more than media spin, manufactured "truth", or empty rhetoric. Stop posting opinions you got gift-wrapped from the talking heads and I'll stop arguing with them.



So WHAT THE FUCK if we wanted help, no other country has an OBLIGATION to help us. I firmly believe people get the government they deserve. 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. Again, this arguement boils down to people refusing to take ownership of their problems.

GOD you're a fucking moron. I knew this after reading the opening post of your evolution v. creationism thread but good lord...could you be any more retarded?

Anyone familier with Somolia for example?

No. What's Somolia?

 

[Dak]

This is pretty much exactly what I said, except that I think it's wrong for one nation to intervene in another nation's affairs. But for the group to do so is appropriate.


GOD you're a fucking moron. I knew this after reading the opening post of your evolution v. creationism thread but good lord...could you be any more retarded?


No. What's Somolia?

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.

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.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Why are you even bringing up Somalia? Surely cases like that do not warrant abandoning peacekeeping efforts altogether (although that was pretty much the knee-jerk reaction of many countries after that incident), and in all likelihood more good has come out of peacekeeping than bad.

 

[Dak]

Why are you even bringing up Somalia? Surely cases like that do not warrant abandoning peacekeeping efforts altogether (although that was pretty much the knee-jerk reaction of many countries after that incident), and in all likelihood more good has come out of peacekeeping than bad.

I am not aware of any. I did pull one of the worst case scenarios as an example, there are plenty others where we showed up, killed some people, lost some American lives, eventually pulled out and they are just as fucked up now as before.

 

[Dak]

Btw on this issue, has anyone who has posted an opinion here been in the US military during OIF/OEF or any other "peace-keeping" mission for that matter?

 

[Dak]

Haven't been listening to metal but for about 2 years so I don't have the catalogue of knowledge to contribute to metal discussions at a level thats acceptable to me, I do plenty of reading for band suggestions.

 

[AchrisK]

Haven't been listening to metal but for about 2 years so I don't have the catalogue of knowledge to contribute to metal discussions at a level thats acceptable to me, I do plenty of reading for band suggestions.

That's good, because based on your sig pic, you need some help

 

[Dak]

At the risk of this thread getting entirely hijacked, I do listen to other, um, less commercial bands (Although I really wouldn't call protest the hero commercial yet). Its just what I prefer more as opposed to maybe, SYL or Amon Amarth.

 

[AchrisK]

Protest the Hero?! I mean what kind of a name is that? Any of those bands with sentences for names I usually just write off. I assume they are just like technical death core or something?

I do like Death Angel, tho.

 

[Demonic viscera]

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