"If the US is supposed to be the best/purest country then why..."

[TekDragon]

The US of A makes decisions ALL THE TIME that cause harm. Face it, it's inevitable. The best we can hope for is to make decisions that cause the GREATEST gain with the LEAST loss. That's what foreign policy is. If your looking for a country that won't commit even the smallest sin for the greater good - good luck, I guarantee that country your looking for has a population of 1, and is completely isolated. The moment it has a population of 2, or opens up relations with another country - there goes your desire. Foreign policy will be enacted and harm will be done.

Whether that harm is for the greater good of the government, the people of the nation, or the people of the world - it all depends on what kind of nation you are. Nations like Russia and France frequently make decisions that cause harm but benifit the government while nations like the USA have, almost always, made decisions that benifit the world in some greater way.

The USA's policy of inflicting harm to cause the greatest good for as much of the world as possible is what makes us #1 and is what will KEEP us #1. Every major decision we've ever made in history reflects our desire to make the world a better place, even if we have to crack a few heads to do it.

I've said it before and i've said it again - I think liberals have zero grasp what-so-ever on foreign policy.

In the second phase of the War on Terror we choose to invade Iraq instead of some backwater African province, and the left screams because we made that decision for oil. That's not the reason, but if it is: Who CARES? The entire WORLD runs on oil, and allowing it's free trade would help the entire world. Ignore the fact that Saddam was a mad-man who killed 2 million people, had terrorist connections, and refused to cooperate with diplomacy. Ignore the fact that we toppled his government, the regime of one of the most powerful/richest nations in the Middle East with extremely low loss of life. THAT'S why we went into Iraq. Greatest gain, least loss. FOREIGN POLICY.

Speaking of the 2 million people Saddam killed. Theirs a few people in here that like to point out that Saddam was originally helped by the US. Ok, so? Iran was a MUCH greater threat to the region and to the world's economy. Iran's #1 enemy at the time was Saddam, and by helping Saddam defeat Iran, it got rid of the threat to the world economy. THAT'S why we helped Saddam. Greatest gain, least loss. FOREIGN POLICY.

The left also likes to use the paralel of: "Why aren't we invading North Korea since we invaded Iraq?" This is, quite possibly, the worst example of a lack of foreign policy knowledge - as well as a severe deficit in common sence. News flash, Einsteins: North Korea has tens of thousands of long range artillery batteries aimed at South Korea's cities. The moment a US plane dropped a SINGLE bomb, South Korea would be decimated and destroyed within 5 minutes. Tens of millions would die within days after North Korea began lobbing nukes at Japan after they finished with S. Korea. Does that sound like a big gain for a little loss? No. That's BAD foreign policy.

In the same breath, they also ask why we haven't attacked Iran. Again, the answer is foreign policy. Greatest gain with the least loss. Right now diplomacy is WORKING. We showed Iran who has the balls, and we showed them we are NOT afraid to back up the UN's decisions. Iran knows that as the UN puts more and more pressure on them, they HAVE to respond. Any form of resisting will put them in the same boat as Saddam - and this time they won't have Russia, France, and Annan there to bail them out.

Some people here like to bitch about the Kyoto agreement. Nevermind the fact that the USA has one of the cleanest industry, per capita, in the world. Nevermind that the REAL polluters like China were not even under the Kyoto agreement. Nevermind that the entire purpose of the Kyoto agreement was a European effort to hamper US growth in order to spur their own economy - just like the EU is about to hamper China's growth to help EU's sagging high-tech economy. FOREIGN POLICY. That's the EU using foreign policy, and US using foreign policy in return.

I could go on and on and on, reciting a constant stream of forien policy decisions from the time this nation was founded to now. During EVERY SINGLE ONE of those desicions, there were people then like there are people now - people that will bitch incesently about it.

In my opinion, I give these people the same amount of respect as those who think that the hypocratic oath of a doctor should prevent them from giving a patient a life-saving cure - all because that needle prick would hurt them.


[EDIT] If there are any references to "liberals in here" or "posters here", ignore it - i originally posted this on another forum I visit.

[little zz]

geeze -
That's a lot of words. Is this your way of justifying the war crimes committed by this administration?

Why not look at all that with an open mind instead? (As opposed to the American mind)

[TekDragon]

Quote by: little zz geeze - That's a lot of words. Is this your way of justifying the war crimes committed by this administration?

Maybe if you read it, you'd find out what it's about.

[little zz]

I did read it.

Saying green is orange doesn't make it so.

[TekDragon]

Quote by: little zz I did read it. Saying green is orange doesn't make it so.

Wow, good rebuttal. I bow to your wisdom.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: TekDragon Some people here like to bitch about the Kyoto agreement. Nevermind the fact that the USA has one of the cleanest industry, per capita, in the world. Nevermind that the REAL polluters like China were not even under the Kyoto agreement. Nevermind that the entire purpose of the Kyoto agreement was a European effort to hamper US growth in order to spur their own economy - just like the EU is about to hamper China's growth to help EU's sagging high-tech economy. FOREIGN POLICY. That's the EU using foreign policy, and US using foreign policy in return.

I'm sorry, this kind of made me want to laugh, quite incessantly. Where are your sources btw?
China has a population of consisting 1/5th of World total, by proportion, they should be allowed say 1/5th of World's pollution. This is a simplistic way of thinking, a magical number but it suffices for now.
According to here, "The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, is responsible for 23% of world CO2 emissions. In 1998, U.S. CO2 emissions were 10.3 percent above 1990 levels while European Union emissions were less than 1 percent above 1990 levels--due in part to declining coal use in Germany and the United Kingdom. (WorldWatch)".

[TekDragon]

Quote by: Pooeypants I'm sorry, this kind of made me want to laugh, quite incessantly. Where are your sources btw? China has a population of consisting 1/5th of World total, by proportion, they should be allowed say 1/5th of World's pollution. This is a simplistic way of thinking, a magical number but it suffices for now. According to here, "The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, is responsible for 23% of world CO2 emissions. In 1998, U.S. CO2 emissions were 10.3 percent above 1990 levels while European Union emissions were less than 1 percent above 1990 levels--due in part to declining coal use in Germany and the United Kingdom. (WorldWatch)".

Those facts on comparison between the US and EU pretty much prove my point. The EU has a small, and rapidly failing industry. They need a way to get it back on it's feet, so they tried to get the US to agree to the kyoto agreement.

Go look at what the EU is doing about China. More foreign policy to hurt another country so that the EU can profit.

[giuliano]

Quote by: TekDragon Speaking of the 2 million people Saddam killed. Theirs a few people in here that like to point out that Saddam was originally helped by the US. Ok, so? Iran was a MUCH greater threat to the region and to the world's economy. Iran's #1 enemy at the time was Saddam, and by helping Saddam defeat Iran, it got rid of the threat to the world economy. THAT'S why we helped Saddam. Greatest gain, least loss. FOREIGN POLICY.

i must have missed that history class. last i checked, saddam didn't defeat iran at all.

US support for iraq led to a bloody and useless war with iran that achieved nothing of any real benefit to the US or anyone else for that matter. oh and i forgot - armed them with WMD.

iran hadn't really done much to affect the US, except kidnap some embassy officials. in contrast, the iran-iraq war left around one million dead i believe.

get your facts straight.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: TekDragon Those facts on comparison between the US and EU pretty much prove my point. The EU has a small, and rapidly failing industry. They need a way to get it back on it's feet, so they tried to get the US to agree to the kyoto agreement. Go look at what the EU is doing about China. More foreign policy to hurt another country so that the EU can profit.

I'm sorry, the EU now consists of 25 nations, can you be more specific?

Might I remind you that the UK is part of the EU and they are one of the forerunners in pushing for this treaty, being that the UK is supposed to have a special relationship with the USA, why would they do so?

China is still a developing country for the most part, the US however is on the whole vastly wealthier and technologically advanced, it's just not comparable.

Infact, the Kyoto treaty itself is not sufficient to do enough to curb this rising in CO2 concentration, but it is a start neithertheless. The purpose of it is the secure stability of our climate in the future, not a World conspiracy against the US.

[Samildanach]

Quite frankly Tek you are talking mostly a load of rubbish.

The US of A makes decisions ALL THE TIME that cause harm. Face it, it's inevitable

what is so inevitable about this? A lot of countries manage to make decisions without actually having to go to war about them. The problem is that the US still believes that force is the simplest solution to a problem so they barely even try to negotiate any more.
Its making me begin to suspect you use force because you have crappy negotiators.

The USA's policy of inflicting harm to cause the greatest good for as much of the world as possible is what makes us #1 and is what will KEEP us #1. Every major decision we've ever made in history reflects our desire to make the world a better place, even if we have to crack a few heads to do it.

what planet are you from? I agree with the whole USA inflciting harm bit but for the greater good?
Get real mate, the USA has never lifted a finger without getting some kind of tangible or intangible benefit in the background for itself and it certainly does not have anything to do with making the world a better place, except maybe for the rich citizens of the USA. Take the current war in Iraq for example, nothing whatsoever to do with the civilians of Iraq or even WMD. It was all about what currency OPEC countries wanted to be paid for their oil in. In 2002 Iraq decided it wanted to be paid in Euros instead of dollars, this forced the US to create an excuse to invade.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
Basically the US has invaded Iraq to give it some breathing space as it tries to slow down the downward economic spiral as it adjusts to the Euro becoming much more likely to be OPEC's default currency. Why else do you think your dollar is plummeting like a stone? No one wants it any more because they are not sure that they will need it to purchase oil with. They may need Euros instead. Bush is acting purely in the interest of the US, it has nothing to do with humanitarian or any other issue you may think of and to snivel on about how everyone else seems to give the US a tough time when they are doing the 'right' thing is naieve at best and stupid at worst. Open your eyes and start seeing whats there to be seen.

[TekDragon]

Gee, Samildanach. I guess your just another example of a liberal who thinks they understand Iraqis better than the Iraqis do.

Quote by: LA Times Iraqis consistently say in nationwide polls that the situation in their country is improving. In polls over the course of the summer, for example, more than half of Iraqis said their country was on the right track. The vast majority of Iraqis — 72% — see the same benefits in democracy as Americans do: the hope for peace, stability and a better life. Most polls show that 75% of Iraqis want to vote for their leaders rather than have clerics appoint them. ....... Iraqis don't understand the debate about whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To them, Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction. UNICEF, hardly an apologist for the Bush administration, estimates that 5,000 Iraqi children a month died of starvation and malnutrition while Hussein siphoned funds from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to build his palaces and enrich French politicians. Americans are only now learning of the extent of Hussein's corruption of this humanitarian program; the Iraqis have known about it for quite some time. When asked to rate their confidence in the U.N., Iraqis gave the organization a 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 4, with a 4 meaning absolutely no confidence. In contrast, more than 60% of Iraqis tell pollsters that the Iraqi government has done a good job since the June 28 hand-over.

Quote by: Liberty Post In a recent speech, Kerry charged that Saddam Hussein's brutality "was not, in itself, a reason to go to war." Iraqis disagree, as should any supporter of human rights. Nearly 55% of Iraqis say that toppling Hussein was worth the price of the current difficulties.

The following is a polling of Iraqi's way back in February. Obviously things are much better now.

Quote by: ABC These results are from an ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28. Pre-war vs. post-war: Your family's protection from crime: 50.5 percent say things are better now; 38.6 percent, worse. The security situation: 53.6 percent of respondents say things are better now; 26.4 percent, worse. Availability of jobs: 38.9 percent, better; 25.3 percent, worse. Supply of electricity: 43.4 percent, better; 23.0 percent worse. Availability of clean water: 41.3 percent, better; 16.4 percent, worse. Availability of medical care: 44.3 percent better; 15.6 percent, worse. Local schools: 46.9 percent better; 9.4 percent, worse. Local government: 44.4 percent better, 16.4 percent worse. The availability of household basics: 44.2 percent better, 16.9 percent worse.

Here's another poll - this one by CNN/Gallup. It was also done in the first quarter of 2004.

Quote by: CNN The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 3,444 Iraqis, the largest and most comprehensive poll in Iraq since last year's invasion, was administered by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai. Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent's home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate - the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed - was 98%. Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US/British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not? Worth it: 61% Not worth it: 38% Are you and your family much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the US invasion? Better off: 51% (combining "much better" and "better') Worse off: 25% (combining "much worse" and "worse') Has there been an increase or a decrease in the family income compared to that of before the war? Increase: 41% Decrease: 16% Have you been afraid to worship? Last 4 weeks: 5% Before the war: 54% Would Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by Iraqis if US/British forces had not taken direct military action? Yes: 4% No: 89%

[Dieval]

Quote by: giuliano i must have missed that history class. last i checked, saddam didn't defeat iran at all.

I believe Tek should have included the word TRY in there....as in TRY to defeat Iran...

Quote by: giuliano US support for iraq led to a bloody and useless war with iran that achieved nothing of any real benefit to the US or anyone else for that matter. oh and i forgot - armed them with WMD.

Was it a mistake? maybe, but you're forgetting that AT THE TIME Iran was considered the bigger threat.

Quote by: giuliano iran hadn't really done much to affect the US, except kidnap some embassy officials.

Kind of trivializing the whole US hostage situation, aren't you?


BTW, good post Tek...it's nice to see a post where the US of A ins't accused of being criminals, mass murders, etc, etc, etc...

[TekDragon]

Quote by: Dieval BTW, good post Tek...it's nice to see a post where the US of A ins't accused of being criminals, mass murders, etc, etc, etc...

Only the liberal left is ignorant enough to make those claims.

Look at the polls of actual Iraqi's.

[Technosoul]

Now it might be a religious principle being explored here such as "let he who is perfect among you cast the first stone". None the less, even if a country does some harm one would think they would be accountable for their acitons, not that stoning them is needed, but at least we might expect an aplogy or something, or a change in that policy so it does not continue.

Now we do not have traffic cops writing tickets for wreakless policy makers when it come to international events between countries, for the most part, and nowadays perhaps not for any part if you happen to be America.

In the past it was mostly only America with the help of England that ever did much of anything to enforce any violations of international boarders or problems about human rights, who else sent their military to fight and die for international laws, sure, some other countries would send along a few hundred people just to be part of the "big brother" club, but alone they would do nothing without the bigger backing of the USA or our super spy form the sky network of intelligence gathering. America is basically in the cat bird seat when it comes to regulating international standards, and thusly, only concerning other violators but not our self, we are not going to send our military to counter-act our own military when it comes to forien policy (in the event others do not like that policy).

If the Law dies then any resemblence of world order will likewise crumble. And that Law is by the authority of the USA, as the last standing superdopper Super Power. And that Law depends totally on the actions of the American pulbic, to demand that all our higher-ups in government and busness are made accountable for their imperfections or intended abuse of power. We must look at how things are nowadays, do "we the people" really have an effective way to control those we push up from our culture to hold those high ranking posts? Even if you had a three million person march on Washington to protest some forien policy, would that really alter how those in charge operate or think? Is it really possible to vote all the bad seeds out of high ranking offices anymore, or to impeach them via a grass roots effort?

Technosoul.

[little zz]

Quote by: TekDragon Wow, good rebuttal. I bow to your wisdom.

and all you do is cut and past and tell people to "read it"...

Do you have an opion of your own?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Technosoul made accountable for their imperfections

Is anyone perfect? Should anyone be held accountable for not being imperfect?

[Suburbanite]

I think it is extremely dangerous for us to be playing the games we are playing. We have no responsibility to topple regimes, nor responsibility to prevent them. Our troops should not be used to defend or attack any nation in the ways they have been over the last century or so. The only time we should have any foriegn involvement is when it deals with our economic interests. The U. S should not be policing the world in any way what so ever, it costs far too much money and is way too big of a political risk against us. WWI and WWII were huge mistakes for us to enter, as were Vietnam, Korea, etc, etc. It is a huge mistake for us to be at war with Iraq. It isn't our job to build them a democracy. We should have just stolen and secured the oil and whatever else we wanted quickly and efficiently and keep those areas protected.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Dieval Is anyone perfect? Should anyone be held accountable for not being imperfect?

Not being imperfect? Should anyone be held accountable for being perfect is what you're asking...

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: TekDragon [EDIT] If there are any references to "liberals in here" or "posters here", ignore it - i originally posted this on another forum I visit.

If that's the case you might use an old freelance writing trick and submit the same thing but rewrite it for the forum. Cut and paste jobs are frowned upon here and the posts and responses are generally original and specifically for the topic at hand. Op-ed pieces are usually not appropriate for a debate.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Suburbanite Not being imperfect? Should anyone be held accountable for being perfect is what you're asking...

You're right that I had it wrong, but let me try again......
As no one is perfect, that's a given, should anyone be held accountable for not being perfect?