Does America HAVE to be a Force for Good (and Why)?

[ban-one]

Really?
We did more to defeat Hitler than the Soviets?
Please explain.

We didn't even set foot on the European continent until Sept '43, 8 months after Stalingrad. By 9/43 the Russians were gaining the upper hand over the Germans on all fronts except at Leningrad, where the siege was weakening but would last another four months.
The number of Russian casualties and the number of German dead at the hands of the Russians eclipses our comparative numbers by a light year.
If we'd never set foot in Europe Russia would have beaten Hitler all by itself. It would have taken longer but it would have happened.

First, did you not notice I said WWI and WWII? I didn't say just Hitler/Germany in WWII. Second, we bombed Germany back to the stone age in the day time so we could hit things (putting our planes and crews in greater danger), destroyed the Luftwaffe, landed in and kicked the Germans and Italians out of North Africa, before moving on to Italy, and like Mayhem said, we gave all kinds of material support (because we could build things in such large numbers) to the USSR and all the other Allies, including the resistance on the ground in occupied countries, and we opened up another front (Italy and France), taking pressure off the Soviets. And let's not forget, Germany and the USSR were pals in the beginning, and Germany had a stupid idea to change that. Third, all the Europeans (which includes a France that was more powerful than Germany and Italy and not the joke it is now) and Soviets could do was manage a stalemate at best, largely due to bad German planning, the Russian winter, the Brits' aerial defense of their homeland, and the English Channel and Pyrenees Mountains. The Soviet's loses are a testament to how poorly they did things, and the Germans' were from a bad idea that Napoleon also had and the Germans didn't learn from. Taking on the Russians in winter, that never ends well. Fourth, we (the upstart country not even 200 years old) did all this while taking on Japan and helping China half a world away. You think any other country could've done that? We became the world power in WWI and showed it in WWII.

I will concede to you that had we not set foot in Europe (or bombed Germany), the Soviets would have probably eventually defeated the Germans. However, not without our material support and it would've been because the Soviets had more people they could throw at the Germans. But there's no telling how long it would've taken (or how many would be dead), and as Mayhem points out, if the Soviets did or did not win, neither situation would have been a good thing.

 

[emceeemcee]

Please point out when the hell I ever said that. And please point out where that is said in the thread title.

so you do think America has obligations to other people around the world?

you've been pretty reluctant to take any kind of stance here.

I honestly don't recall you being any great source of links. But here's your chance to provide them. Please explain the "millions of deaths" thing and make sure to include your links.

OK, link-boy. Here's your chance to shine. "millions of people in it's quest to control the world" is going to need explaining. ALL of it.

Written by CIA people;

My reference to the assessment of these former CIA officials comes from a polemic by Washington Post journalist (and peace activist) Colman McCarthy published in The Guardian Weekly of December 20, 1987:

"Philip Roettinger is an old boy enrolling in a new school. Tall, straight-backed, and well-spoken, Roettinger, 72, is an alumnus of the CIA. Among other inglorious deeds in the spying trade, he was part of the 1954 successful effort to overthrow left-leaning Guatemalen President Jacobo Arbenz... Roettinger, ex-CIA case officer and former Marine colonel, is now president of the newly formed Association for Responsible Dissent (ARDIS). Some of that dissenting was heard recently when Roettinger and 13 other former CIA officials - from undercover agents to counterintelligence specialists - announced the purpose of their group: 'We are going to try to expose covert action. We're going to try to get it legally banned because we can find no reason, no justification, for covert action on the part of the American people'.

"The group spoke of the congressional and public records being 'replete with accounts of US covert operations that killed, wounded and terrorized millions of people whose countries were not at war with the United States nor possessed the capabilities to do remarkable physical hurt to the United States, who themselves bore the United States no ill will nor cared greatly about the issues of 'communism' or 'capitalism'. With the group estimating that 'at least 6 million people have died as a consequence of US covert operations since World War II', one question rushes in from the cold. With 6 million dead, why not go beyond the banning of only covert actions to abolishing the CIA altogether?" (Excesses of the CIA)
http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2011/05/cia-holocaust.html

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html


There is a library worth of books on the topic. I am consistently amazed when I hear of Americans who don't know about this stuff when you consider how extensive the list of atrocities is.

If there was any truth to your claim, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be run by Arabians. Mexico wouldn't be run by Mexicans. Canada sure as hell wouldn't be run by Canadians (and they'd probably be better off). And European colonies in Africa and Asia would still be European colonies. The western world lost trillions when it handed the reigns back to the natives in a whole slew of these countries.

The fact that Saudis happen to be running Saudi Arabia doesn't really mean anything- the house of Saud is a monarchy which maintains power through violence against it's people (who absolutely hate it) and gives the US/west everything it wants. It suits our demands quite nicely.

So please, explain this grandiose plan America has "to take over the world." (Que ominous yet dramatic music)

Grand Area doctrine.


The reason the West is so unpopular in the Arab world is not some great mystery. Chomsky describes a 1958 report by the US National Security Council exploring the reasons for the “campaign of hatred” against the United States in the Middle East. “They found there was a perception among a majority of Arabs that US was seeking to protect its oil interests by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress” he says. “The report went on to say that not only was this perception accurate but it describes the way things ought to be.”

http://www.towardfreedom.com/middle...acy-arab-uprisings-and-oil-in-the-middle-east

State Department Policy Study 23, issued in 1948, which was apparently written by George Kennan: "The U.S. has about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200311--.htm


Control of middle eastern oil reserves=effective control of the world.

The historical accuracy of the fact is that there has not been one day on this planet when foreign relations hasn't been a nightmare. Hundreds of years before Ameica was first settled, people were dying by the thousands in one war after another. Colonialization, imperialism, domination, commercial interests and power grabbing are human traits, not American ones. Australia has it's own fine history of this in the way it deliberately tried to annihilate its Aborigines. How about an ongoing weep-fest for them?

You can weep over those long gone empires if you want. I don't see the point to spending energy on things which are dead and buried. The focus of attention should be on present day empires.

The original question, seeing as how you seem to have missed it, while clicking on this thread, does America HAVE to be a force for good? And so far, you're the only one who hasn't answered.

Then you are asking if it's OK for it to be a force for destruction.

I already answered the question btw. Yes, America does have to be a force for good as does every other nation on the planet- it has to do good things like not engage in wars of agression against other countries and not interfere in their political and economic systems.

You obviously asked the question because you are under the rather strange impression that people are asking for America to come and rescue them. I think if you listened more carefully most people are arguing for less American intervention, not more.

 

[emceeemcee]

:rofl2::funnyshit:

The only thing funny is the level of statist indoctrination and ignorance of history you display on a regular basis on these forums



now THAT is funny!

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Now where's WTC7 when you need a total nutbag to add to the rabid paranoid prejudice .....?

 

[Mayhem]

"The group spoke of the congressional and public records being 'replete with accounts of US covert operations that killed, wounded and terrorized millions of people whose countries were not at war with the United States nor possessed the capabilities to do remarkable physical hurt to the United States, who themselves bore the United States no ill will nor cared greatly about the issues of 'communism' or 'capitalism'. With the group estimating that 'at least 6 million people have died as a consequence of US covert operations since World War II', one question rushes in from the cold. With 6 million dead, why not go beyond the banning of only covert actions to abolishing the CIA altogether?" (Excesses of the CIA)

OK, so all your grand research leads us to a statement made by a special interest group, trying to validate its own existence. Good job. The "group" estimates? Any peer review to back this up?

The fact that Saudis happen to be running Saudi Arabia doesn't really mean anything- the house of Saud is a tyranny which maintains power through violence against it's people and gives the US everything it wants. It suits America's needs just fine.

This thread isn't about how Saudi Arabia runs their country. But you seem to have a problem with it. So (since you like putting words in other peoples mouths, you surely won't object to me putting some in yours) you apparently support regime change. Perhaps some outside influence could help you with that.

Chomsky describes a 1958 report by the US National Security Council exploring the reasons for the “campaign of hatred” against the United States in the Middle East. “They found there was a perception among a majority of Arabs that US was seeking to protect its oil interests by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress” he says. “The report went on to say that not only was this perception accurate but it describes the way things ought to be.”

State Department Policy Study 23, issued in 1948, which was apparently written by George Kennan:

....

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle. 1948 and 1958? This is what took you two days to dredge up. Why don't you throw in the Alaska Purchase while you're at it?

The focus of attention should be on present day empires.

America is not an empire. With all your books, you can't afford a dictionary? Except for Puerto Rico and a couple of rocks sticking out of the Pacific, America has no overseas possessions. And don't try to jump on P.R. They want statehood (and I want it for them), so they don't seem to be unhappy to have been "assimilated".

Then you are asking if it's OK for it to be a force for destruction.

What language are these books of yours in? I have to ask, because you seem to have a persistent problem with plain english. Seriously, emcee, STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. No one else around here has this problem, so I know the problem isn't mine.

Yes, America does have to be a force for good as does every other nation on the planet- it has to do good things like not engage in wars of agression against other countries and not interfere in their political and economic systems.

Was WWII a war of aggression on our part? Was the Korean War? Was Operation(s) Desert Shield/Storm? What would you be posting right now if we hadn't involved ourselves in these conflicts?

You obviously asked the question because you are under the rather strange impression that people are asking for America to come and rescue them. I think if you listened more carefully most people are arguing for less American intervention, not more.

There's nothing strange, nor is it an "impression". And, since you need things repeated to you, I'm one of the ones arguing for less intervention. I'm not being sarcastic. You and I are in lock-step when it comes to America bringing all its forces home and letting the rest of the world hack itself to death.

Emcee, once again, I'm sorry you live in the ass-crack of creation. I'm sorry that your country is a virtual non-entity on the world stage. I'm sorry that your main claim to fame is how you guys get prison fucked by Japan, and seem to like it. I'm sorry that it's common knowledge that if India invaded you on a Tuesday, they'd wind up sitting down to a quiet dinner by Sunday. None of this is my fault any more than it is America's fault.

And since you have such a problem about imperialism, pack your bags. Australia is a direct result if British Imperialism so, by your standards, you are a British citizen and it's time for you to move back to the mother country. Make sure you apologize to any Aborigines you pass on the way to the airport.

 

[busenbust]

power without responsibility ! no thanks ! :nono: so yes, it has to be a force for good -- won't be easy but it's an imperative :my2cents: :2 cents:

 

[Pattheprovo]

Yes read more spider man.

 

[Mayhem]

Yes, America does have to be a force for good as does every other nation on the planet

BTW, I forgot to mention......thanx for taking the better part of a week and a handful of meaningless posts to finally get around to answering the question.

 

[Hot Mega]

BTW, I forgot to mention......thanx for taking the better part of a week and a handful of meaningless posts to finally get around to answering the question.

Better she be a force for good than a force for Mayhem.:2 cents:

 

[Trident1]

The only thing funny is the level of statist indoctrination and ignorance of history you display on a regular basis on these forums



now THAT is funny!

Pal I forgot more history than you'll ever know.

 

[Will E Worm]

power without responsibility ! no thanks ! :nono: so yes, it has to be a force for good -- won't be easy but it's an imperative :my2cents: :2 cents:

Yes read more spider man.

Okay, looks like we have Stan Lee Clones on the board. :1orglaugh :tongue:

America need only defend itself and it's interests.

Be more like Shifty and I.

 

[emceeemcee]

OK, so all your grand research leads us to a statement made by a special interest group, trying to validate its own existence. Good job. The "group" estimates? Any peer review to back this up?

Government planning doesn't get submitted to journals for peer review, as far as I know.

Even if there were no central planning documents we can tell quite clearly what the goals of the US are from it's foreign policy record and that goal is control. To wit:

Take, for example, Chile in the early 1970s when socialist President Salvador Allende won an election and took steps aimed at improving the conditions of the country’s poor.

Under the direction of President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the CIA was dispatched to engage in psychological warfare against Allende’s government and to make the Chilean economy “scream.”

U.S. intelligence agencies secretly sponsored Chilean news outlets, like the influential newspaper El Mercurio, and supported “populist” uprisings of truckers and housewives. On the economic front, the CIA coordinated efforts to starve the Chilean government of funds and to drive unemployment higher.

Worsening joblessness could then be spun by the CIA-financed news outlets as proof that Allende’s policies didn’t work and that the only choice for Chile was to scrap its social programs. When Allende compromised with the Right, that had the additional benefit of causing friction between him and some of his supporters who wanted even more radical change.

As Chile became increasingly ungovernable, the stage was set for the violent overthrow of Allende, the installation of a rightist dictatorship, and the imposition of “free-market” economics that directed more wealth and power to Chile’s rich and their American corporate backers.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/15...country_to_sweep_back_into_power/?page=entire


That's just one example out of many.

This thread isn't about how Saudi Arabia runs their country.

So why did you bring it up then?

But you seem to have a problem with it. So (since you like putting words in other peoples mouths, you surely won't object to me putting some in yours) you apparently support regime change. Perhaps some outside influence could help you with that.

Or perhaps we could let people decide the fate of their own country?

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle. 1948 and 1958? This is what took you two days to dredge up. Why don't you throw in the Alaska Purchase while you're at it?

So if something is from 1948 or 1958 it can't possibly be factually correct?

America is not an empire. With all your books, you can't afford a dictionary? Except for Puerto Rico and a couple of rocks sticking out of the Pacific, America has no overseas possessions. And don't try to jump on P.R. They want statehood (and I want it for them), so they don't seem to be unhappy to have been "assimilated".

The people who live next door to the 700+ American bases around the world certainly do see it as an empire so it doesn't really matter if you don't.

I wonder if China or Russia had that many military bases around the world you'd think they weren't empires as well?

What language are these books of yours in? I have to ask, because you seem to have a persistent problem with plain english. Seriously, emcee, STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. No one else around here has this problem, so I know the problem isn't mine.

It's not a hard question to answer, whether or not you feel your country should be able to behave anyway it wants when it's outside it's own borders, though you have already answered in a way.

Was WWII a war of aggression on our part? Was the Korean War? Was Operation(s) Desert Shield/Storm? What would you be posting right now if we hadn't involved ourselves in these conflicts?

WWII and Korea were legitimate responses to acts of aggression from NK and Germany. However, they were used to further expand the global reach and control of the US. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for America to have bases in South Korea and Germany- so what are they still doing there?

Gulf War I was presented to look like a legitimate liberation of Kuwait but that was total propaganda. When Saddam was threatening to invade the US made it's intentions pretty clear, the US ambassador to Iraq at the time said: "we have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait". The State department was also making public statements that the US had absolutely no security agreement with Kuwait to come to it's aid if it was attacked. If the US was so concerned with keeping Saddam out of Kuwait it would never have said those things, a threat of US military action would have been enough for Saddam to think twice about invasion. They wanted him to invade so they've have a pretext to get troops onto the ground in the ME which had been a policy goal since after WWII. You may remember the infamous testimony to congress from a Kuwaiti talking about Saddam's men throwing premature babies out of their incubators. She turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter who had been coached by a top DC advertising firm.

There's nothing strange, nor is it an "impression". And, since you need things repeated to you, I'm one of the ones arguing for less intervention. I'm not being sarcastic. You and I are in lock-step when it comes to America bringing all its forces home and letting the rest of the world hack itself to death.

The US isn't preventing the world hack itself to death though. It's actions are doing the opposite. You'd have a hard time trying to make the case for anything different.

Emcee, once again, I'm sorry you live in the ass-crack of creation. I'm sorry that your country is a virtual non-entity on the world stage. I'm sorry that your main claim to fame is how you guys get prison fucked by Japan, and seem to like it. I'm sorry that it's common knowledge that if India invaded you on a Tuesday, they'd wind up sitting down to a quiet dinner by Sunday. None of this is my fault any more than it is America's fault.

And since you have such a problem about imperialism, pack your bags. Australia is a direct result if British Imperialism so, by your standards, you are a British citizen and it's time for you to move back to the mother country. Make sure you apologize to any Aborigines you pass on the way to the airport.

Yeah that's pretty much standard imperialist/ultra nationalist mentality- you believe America to be so perfect in it's action that something else must motivate it's critics.

All that tells me is that you didn't actually read any of the links I provided upon your request which document decades of US state terrorism across the world.

 

[emceeemcee]

Pal I forgot more history than you'll ever know.

since when was I your pal?

 

[Trident1]

Take, for example, Chile in the early 1970s when socialist President Salvador Allende won an election and took steps aimed at improving the conditions of the country’s poor.







Yeah that's pretty much standard imperialist/ultra nationalist mentality-

Allende had to go for the simple reason he allow would Chile to go into the Soviet camp. Was it right to overthrow a man who legitimately won a fair election? No but you're too young to remember how it was during the Cold War. It was us versus them mentality. The Soviets played the same game ensuring satellites remained on their side.


The U.S. is neither imperialist nor nationalist despite being popular monickers with naive coffeehouse Leftists. Your rhetoric is based on the same dull Marxist baloney used since the 70s to defend one side and attack the other.:kettle:

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

No. But a select few make serious money selling the bombs we use to be a force of good.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Be more like Shifty and I.

Dear Shifty,


So sorry for your loss of [dignity, respect, motor function] .. you and Will E Trebus huh?

Why, why, why ...

 

[Will E Worm]

Dear Shifty,


So sorry for your loss of [dignity, respect, motor function] .. you and Will E Trebus huh?

Why, why, why ...

Shifty is better than you. :hatsoff:

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Shifty is better than you. :hatsoff:

he can also read between the lines.

And isn't insane.

Or a hypocrite.

Or gay.

Or have a fish for a head.

What's your point?

 

[Will E Worm]

he can also read between the lines.

And isn't insane.

Or a hypocrite.

Or gay.



What's your point?

:nono: :stir:

 

[Mayhem]

The people who live next door to the 700+ American bases around the world certainly do see it as an empire so it doesn't really matter if you don't.

Bullshit. The people who live next door to the 700+ American bases around the world are making terrific money from the Americans who are stationed there. And don't even try contradicting that Vodkaz.....er...I mean emcee. I was stationed at a few of them. A military base in your town is money in your pocket. Swing and a miss.

Gulf War I was presented to look like a legitimate liberation of Kuwait but that was total propaganda. When Saddam was threatening to invade the US made it's intentions pretty clear, the US ambassador to Iraq at the time said: "we have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait". The State department was also making public statements that the US had absolutely no security agreement with Kuwait to come to it's aid if it was attacked. If the US was so concerned with keeping Saddam out of Kuwait it would never have said those things, a threat of US military action would have been enough for Saddam to think twice about invasion. They wanted him to invade so they've have a pretext to get troops onto the ground in the ME which had been a policy goal since after WWII.

Absolute bullshit, and you need one of your famous links to back up that allegation. Glaspies remarks were intended to calm Hussein down. The consensus at the time was that Iraq was only concerned with debt forgiveness (over the money owed to Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq War) and lower oil production.

For all your accusations about America meddling in others affairs, now you're pissing and moaning that we didn't meddle enough in an issue that (at the time) was the sole province of Iraq and Kuwait. Why don't you lay down with a damp towel on your forehead and try to figure out what it is you're so pissed about.

You may remember the infamous testimony to congress from a Kuwaiti talking about Saddam's men throwing premature babies out of their incubators. She turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter who had been coached by a top DC advertising firm.

That one, I'll give to you. I smelled bullshit at the time, and the smell never went away. What can I say, Georgey Bush the First was an idiot.....and it runs in the family.

The US isn't preventing the world hack itself to death though. It's actions are doing the opposite. You'd have a hard time trying to make the case for anything different.

I've already made my case, and you have done nothing to refute it. WWII, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia. Who else is going to intervene in Bosnia? You guys? Not a fucking chance. Somalia? Not a fucking chance.

Yeah that's pretty much standard imperialist/ultra nationalist mentality

Are you even reading what I wrote? I have clearly stated that I want American troops out of the rest of the world. Hussein is dead, bin Laden is dead........fuck both shithole countries, let them kill themselves off. Let Al Queda have Afganistan back and treat their women any way they want. How am I an imperialist? Let the fundamentalists have Iraq. What do we care?

All that tells me is that you didn't actually read any of the links I provided upon your request which document decades of US state terrorism across the world.

I read every last one of them. I have no problem with the links in question. It's your one-sided editorial spin and your stunning ignorance of history that I respond too. That, and your gutless, self-serving petulance.