'MURICA
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
58 comments displayed.
#4
-
billymayss (02/13/2015) [-] "All that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Not saying all the times we've "Helped" out other countries has been good, not even most, but maybe it would've been worse sometimes if we didn't step in. Just saying.
Not saying all the times we've "Helped" out other countries has been good, not even most, but maybe it would've been worse sometimes if we didn't step in. Just saying.
#19 to #4
-
fukkentyranitar (02/13/2015) [-] It wasn't help as much as it was a series of soft resets via bombs and mcdonalds franchises. But you're right. Could have been worse.
#32 to #4
-
HonkIfIDriveWell (02/13/2015) [-] "evil" "good"
That's a level of simplicity that the world has never had, and never will have.
That's a level of simplicity that the world has never had, and never will have.
#7 to #4
-
aizeinstein (02/13/2015) [-] "Helped"
I get every nation's on it's own on the international platform but, come on, let's not kid ourselves. U.S.A. is just protecting it's interests, not helping other countries.
I get every nation's on it's own on the international platform but, come on, let's not kid ourselves. U.S.A. is just protecting it's interests, not helping other countries.
#40 to #7
-
billymayss (02/13/2015) [-] I'm not implying we are right or wrong, we helped or caused suffering, or anything. Just something I've been thinking about. Figured I'd see what you guys have to say about it.
#57 to #40
-
aizeinstein (02/13/2015) [-] Think of it this way, the west is more civilized but only for it's own people. That makes it's defence of human rights a hypocrisy.
On the other hand, the middle-east is full of savages. They are the first ones to blame but the west's interference made it worse.
West's still better but it's wasting it's potential to make the world a better place, doing quite the opposite, I think.
On the other hand, the middle-east is full of savages. They are the first ones to blame but the west's interference made it worse.
West's still better but it's wasting it's potential to make the world a better place, doing quite the opposite, I think.
#58 to #57
-
billymayss (02/16/2015) [-] But say we we're to go to Syria and try to stop ISIS, I hear most people in the middle-east hate ISIS and they don't really have the power to stop them. Now I think that if I were in their place, I'd be happy to have the US step in and help. But I'm not in their place so I don't truly know. I strongly believe that if we did intervene we could help significantly, but if we do intervene, I don't know if we actually will.
But say we leave ISIS alone (And I'm just using ISIS because they are current and we are haven't really done much with them yet leaving the outcome open for speculation) what is ISIS isn't stopped soon enough by the countries of the middle-east? What is they just keep gaining power and eventually they become as powerful as some of the first world countries? Maybe they start to invade more and more and we've got a fourth reich on our hands. (I know reich is german, just seemed the best way to explain what "could" happen)
Now I don't believe any of this that i'm saying is going to happen or is true. I'm simply asking questions and I'm glad to listen to what you think because I really know very little about it.
But say we leave ISIS alone (And I'm just using ISIS because they are current and we are haven't really done much with them yet leaving the outcome open for speculation) what is ISIS isn't stopped soon enough by the countries of the middle-east? What is they just keep gaining power and eventually they become as powerful as some of the first world countries? Maybe they start to invade more and more and we've got a fourth reich on our hands. (I know reich is german, just seemed the best way to explain what "could" happen)
Now I don't believe any of this that i'm saying is going to happen or is true. I'm simply asking questions and I'm glad to listen to what you think because I really know very little about it.
#59 to #58
-
billymayss (02/16/2015) [-] I'm really asking these questions to learn why people think it's bad for the US to intervene, because with little knowledge of it, it seems to me like maybe it would be a good thing.
#27 to #7
-
ciacheczko (02/13/2015) [-] Then again - isn't in everyone's best interest that all the countries around the world have their **** checked and aren't in the state of constant war? It's like - protecting your country's interest kinda implies helping other countries because if the global situation goes to hell, so will go your country eventually.
#1
-
lmOldGreg (02/12/2015) [-] I feel there is a direct correlation between America's "concern" for another countrie's problems and the amount of oil it has.
#8 to #1
-
nass (02/13/2015) [-] It's not even about the oil. Just influence. You wanna know why the US didn't invade Syria yet? Because they want to keep Asad. And Europe wants it too. And Israel aswell. And you know why they want to keep this mass murderer? Because he's intereferring with their interests, but rather supporting them indirectly. It's safe to say he'd never attack Israel, but if the revolution suceeded, there could have been a radical islamic leadership, not directly, not in 3 years, but at some point maybe. And these guys would either support Hissbola and/or the Hamas or would even strike against Israel. And that's not what they want. The Saudis have no interest in that either, nor do the Egyptians or any other of Gulf States. But with ISIS/IS/what ever you want to call the maniacs, everything changed, because it's basically what nobody wanted. And yeah, now they are only mudering people (no matter which religion they belong to, just to make that clear, the muslims hate them to most actually). which doesn't matter to the politicians, because let's be honest, to them we (civilians) are nothing. But as soon as they will gain more power, which I as a half-Syrian hopefully hope will not happen, everybody will step up their game, because they declared, that Saudi-Arabia is their next target, which is, as we all know, one of the biggest, if not the biggest allie for the US and Israel. In Addition to that, they already struggle with the conflicts in Oman south of them and internal politcal problems, so a radical islamic army of maniacs with military equippement is tha last thing they want.
And sorry for the wall of text, but if you look from a neutral side, the conflict in the middle-east is quite interesting, especially if you check all sources and not only Fox News or similar **** .
And sorry for the wall of text, but if you look from a neutral side, the conflict in the middle-east is quite interesting, especially if you check all sources and not only Fox News or similar **** .
#54 to #51
-
nass (02/13/2015) [-] Do you honestly believe politicians tell everybody their true intentions? They're not. Forget about allies once, they don't really exist. Germany thought the US was their allie, well, at least until they found out the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel. Nobody trusts anybody and it's all just about their own interests. And it's no theory, no. Do you believe nobody could have killed Asad in 3 years if they really wanted to? Mossad can take out anybody on the globe if they want to and Syria is not that big. Look how fast they found Ghadafi.
#16 to #8
-
anon (02/13/2015) [-]
Uh... No.
Russia told us to **** off because the Syrian government is their ally through previous treaties.
Going to war on the side of Syrian rebels would be going to war with Russia, e.g. World War 3.
Not everything is a ******* conspiracy theory, and if you took two seconds to Google "Syria's Allies" you'd realize that.
Russia told us to **** off because the Syrian government is their ally through previous treaties.
Going to war on the side of Syrian rebels would be going to war with Russia, e.g. World War 3.
Not everything is a ******* conspiracy theory, and if you took two seconds to Google "Syria's Allies" you'd realize that.
#46 to #1
-
gerfox (02/13/2015) [-]
Afghanistan has no oil, Pakistan has no oil (I'm counting the war on terror in Pakistan, drone attacks and special forces raids as an intervention), Vietnam had no oil, Korea had no oil, Serbia had no oil, Somalia had no oil. The only country which did is Iraq, isn't it? And Libya if you count that (might as well, since we counted Serbia and Somalia). So 2 out of 8, 25% of the countries they've had military interventions in (this is from my memory, might be more places, saw something about Panama and Granada, below - those doesn't have oil either, so I guess that would just amplify my point) has had oil at the time of the intervention. The correlation is weak I would say.
#53 to #46
-
cdmin (02/13/2015) [-] afghanistan is the country that is between the countrys that have oil and the first world countrys/allies in europe. so if afghanistan is controlled by someone who doesnt want america/europe to get oil, they have to find another way around, and pipelines threw the sea next to israel are unthinkable.
if you sometimes watch the news or take a look at the worldmap you would see that
if you sometimes watch the news or take a look at the worldmap you would see that
#5 to #2
-
untamedlazyeye (02/13/2015) [-] I'm only using wars after WWII
Korean War - not a true win as the country is still split
Grenada - Dispelled previous government and removed cuban military from country, democratic elections followed and the government stands today.
Panama - U.S. gains control of Panama Canal, President Elect of the nation comes out of hiding and takes office. Still resentment among the people of the U.S. invasion because of the poor conditions of the country in the aftermath.
Haiti - Coup overthrew president of nation, U.N. steps in, removes Coup leaders, previous president reinstated.
Korean War - not a true win as the country is still split
Grenada - Dispelled previous government and removed cuban military from country, democratic elections followed and the government stands today.
Panama - U.S. gains control of Panama Canal, President Elect of the nation comes out of hiding and takes office. Still resentment among the people of the U.S. invasion because of the poor conditions of the country in the aftermath.
Haiti - Coup overthrew president of nation, U.N. steps in, removes Coup leaders, previous president reinstated.
#17
-
ThatsSoFunnyHeHe (02/13/2015) [-] This was definitely an interesting segment. Not that I dislike Jon Stewart, but you often aren't objectively getting both sides of the argument, but in this segment they talked about how America doesn't deserve all the blame it gets, seeing as the place wasn't exactly great when we showed up, and that they've actually become partially dependent on us in some ways.
#29 to #17
-
anon (02/13/2015) [-]
Of course they're dependent, that's the ******* point. Imperialistic capitalism wins again. [url deleted]
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
#30 to #17
-
anon (02/13/2015) [-]
Of course they're dependent, that's the ******* point. Imperialistic capitalism wins again. [url deleted]
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
#12
-
mrrogersexplains (02/13/2015) [-] Well now, the U.S. has found itself in quite a spot.
Either they intervene in international incidents, in which case they're called imperialists and meddlers the world over.
Or they do nothing, and they are called heartless and isolationists.
Make up you damn mind, world.
Either they intervene in international incidents, in which case they're called imperialists and meddlers the world over.
Or they do nothing, and they are called heartless and isolationists.
Make up you damn mind, world.
#10
-
tackyface (02/13/2015) [-] Meanwhile, Obama proposed to congress yesterday a declaration of war against ISIL (Islamic State).
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf
Okay, not really, but close to it. Basically, he is asking for 3 years that the US can use the full extent of our military to attack ISIS, however, ground troops are not to be deployed unless the document is repealed by congress.
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf
Okay, not really, but close to it. Basically, he is asking for 3 years that the US can use the full extent of our military to attack ISIS, however, ground troops are not to be deployed unless the document is repealed by congress.
#42
-
eyyboss (02/13/2015) [-]
We were just talking about this in my Contemporary American Issues class, the reason why everyone hates American's is because we act like the worlds police force. I mean it has it's pro's and con's, I'm not even sure how I feel about **** like that. I guess the US does some good by helping other countries, but at the same time it's none of our ******* business. It's like no matter what you choose to do, its the wrong decision. You guys can flip out on me for this comment, I'm just trying to voice this **** and hear other peoples opinions also.
#45 to #44
-
grasman (02/13/2015) [-] Of course.
If they let things happen in the world new alliances could be forged, new contracts could be made.
Things would have their natural flow and change.
But that's not what america wants.
They want the damn ressources.
If a country disagrees they're labeled a rogue country and are bombed to the ground.
That's how I see it.
If they let things happen in the world new alliances could be forged, new contracts could be made.
Things would have their natural flow and change.
But that's not what america wants.
They want the damn ressources.
If a country disagrees they're labeled a rogue country and are bombed to the ground.
That's how I see it.
#48 to #42
-
zaywoot (02/13/2015) [-] Not just that, it's also arrogance, well... I guess world policing is arrogant, but you know how japan in videogames jerk themselves off so hard about katanas and ninjas and stuff?
America does that a lot from the perspective of an outsider "Leader of the free world" "best country on the planet" "we won WWII" "MARINE CORP HUAH!"
America does that a lot from the perspective of an outsider "Leader of the free world" "best country on the planet" "we won WWII" "MARINE CORP HUAH!"
#20
-
dmagen (02/13/2015) [-] either act big or do nothing
*********** understand only force, so if you gonna hit them, give them the hardest fist you got right in the face
*********** understand only force, so if you gonna hit them, give them the hardest fist you got right in the face
#52
-
newpulse (02/13/2015) [-] **newpulse used "*roll picture*"**
**newpulse rolled image** what if they just let the arabs erradicate themselves through natural selection?
**newpulse rolled image** what if they just let the arabs erradicate themselves through natural selection?
#31
-
anon (02/13/2015) [-]
Of course they're dependent, that's the ******* point. Imperialistic capitalism wins again. [url deleted]
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Open Veins of Latin America' if that article interests you. (To be honest, anyone who doesn't find it scandalous should probably just go back to living in ignorant luxury at the expense of the majority of the rest of the world).
