Date: 6/28/2003 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
I think that its arrogant to assume that only the USA goes into war torn countries to help. Were you the only soldiers in Iraq, were you the only ones in Somalia, nope. It is the responsibility of ALL countries that are able to, to help with those that are not as fortunate. The US may have one of the largest armed forces in the world but they are not the be all end all.  |
Date: 6/28/2003 9:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55967
Thanks for commenting, Magoo. I do understand that the US is NOT the only force to do so, and was not the only one in the situations I sited. Being a US citizen, I was only commenting on my own country's policies to do so. I do not know what the policies are of other countries, which is one of the reasons I left them out of the debate. Most of the other countries who do go in along with the US are doing so on UN policy and I do not know if they have an independent policy of doing such things like I see in my own country. Also, I work with and am friends with people who have strong opinions on this subject as it relates to the US, since we are all US citizens.  |
|
Date: 6/28/2003 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55967
Correction: as far as I know, the US was the only force in Mogadishu, attempting to get Aidid. The entire UN was there to give food, but we were the only ones to go in to get the warlord. Correct me if I'm wrong... |
Date: 6/28/2003 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
I agree with you and Magoo. You both make a good point. If there weren't people or nations who are willing to help the oppressed, what kind of world would we have? I for get who the author of this quote is, but this is it..."All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" or something like that. Anyway, good post!!  |
|
Date: 6/28/2003 9:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55967
Yes, I've heard that. Excellent quote. |
Date: 6/28/2003 9:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
Well King you are too kind! Gypsy Hawk, I know that you didn't mean for the post to sound arrogant but in my bitterness today, I took it as such. Sorry.
I think that the US has to continue to help, as do all other countries that are able. |
|
Date: 6/28/2003 9:41:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 55967
Thanks, Magoo. |
Date: 6/29/2003
From Authorid: 15070
My thoughts? I voted for George W. I strongly supported this war. Now, I see, it could turn into our generations Vietnam. Two more bodies of our young men were found murdered today. *sigh* this will be the never-ending war....  |
Date: 6/29/2003 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
I found that quote, here it is....All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke |
Date: 6/29/2003 8:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 50435
But why is the US there in the first place? Humanitarian cause? I don't think so. The US goes into Iraq under the cover that they're looking for weapons of mass destruction. They go and wipe out the government, which isn't exactly a bad thing, and then they stick around. They haven't found any weapons. Why are they still there? Obviously they're not welcome. So get out. What other country could go into some other nation against the will of the UN, start a little, short-lived war, wipe out the government there, and still not be able to support the reason they apparently went in for in the first place? The US has pushed its luck. Time to go home.  |
|
Date: 6/29/2003 8:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 50435
Looks like KC watched that series on Hitler on the History Channel, eh? |
Date: 6/29/2003 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
When we went into Somalia, we did not do so like we normaly would, with a somewhat discrete buildup of forces to do the job necessary, but with w lot of fanfair and media to show the world that "Hey, we are here and we are going to show the world and we can do what the UN cannot". Well, it backfired and caused American troops their lives, because we undersetimated the will of some of the people, and did not have a full understanding of what it would take to make things happen like we wanted them to. The US has numerous times worked with other coutries in the world's hot spots and under often under UN sanction to try to bring peace to those areas. We have also worked independently when we felt the we had some special interest in an area, especially in Central America. If one looks at all, and I do mean "ALL", the excursions we have made into other countries in the past 30 to 40 years and tried to bring about a change that was suitable to us, you would quickly see that we have failed more often than we have suceeded. In Panama, we got Noriega, but in the end, we lost the use of all our bases there, including the ones we were using for the drug war. We were in the Hunduras/El Slavador/Nicarauga region to try and insure governements that were favorable to the US, yet those countries now either have he same governments they had then, or governments that really do not care what Washington thinks. In Lebanon, we went in to first try and save Palistinian militants from sure death at the hands of Israeli troops who were pushing them into a corner, and moreso to try and bring some semblance of peace back to what had once been the pearl of the Eastern Mediterranean. We did save Arrafat and the PLO heirarchy from annhilation, but we also caused even more hate and discontent towards us and also lost our embassy with a part of it's staff, and the Marines killed in the barracks bombing. We were not alone in Beruit, but we were the target of most of the violence. Anytime we act on our own as the "World Police", we tend to undermine the authority of the UN, which we played a mojor role in the forming of. Now, we often do not agree with the direction the UN takes, but we must understand something, when a UN voted goes against us, that is the voice of the majority of the countries on this planet. We cannot demand that other countries agree with us because we have the "biggesst and the best" , and at the same time keep their respect. Respect is not knot because one has a big hammer to hold over another's head. It is kept because we are willing to understand the other countries' point of veiw, and allow them leeway in the handling of their own affairs. There are times when we do need to act, but I do not believe we should act anywhere unless we are asked to by legitimate governments in a region, or because we are directly threatened by another country.  |
Date: 6/29/2003 11:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 22080
most of our wars in the past century have been to save other people,personally i think we fought for our independence and we fought our civil war all by ourselves, well despite the french aiding us in the revolutionary war, i dont think we should go defending other people, if we could pull it off why cant they  |
|
Date: 6/29/2003 2:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
LOL, Gally how are ya?? Not sure about that show you mention. If I did see it I don't recall. Getting old I guess, can't seem to remember... |
Date: 7/1/2003 10:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 49539
Well, I think the USA will only fight wars so it will benefit themselves. The war on Iraq is to help the Iraqi citizens, yes, but we are also fighting terrorism because of 911. Sometimes it's good to help others...but what if they don't want to be helped? Then I consider it wrong.  |
Date: 7/1/2003 11:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
i kinda agree with offspring... almost everything in this world has a selfish motive behind it, no matter what it is 'dressed up' to be. remember wmd's? although they probably are there (re rosebush) the main idea of the war in iraq was to get rid of a threat, not to liberate the people. if that was so, then why not invade almost the entire middle east?  |
Date: 7/6/2003 5:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
Our current policy is hardly humanitarian based!  |
