Real World Event Discussions

It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:36
VIEWED: 12277
PAGE 5 of 17

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
heres my opinion: only in self defense, in response to an act of aggression, does any nation have the 'right' to go to war. its a principle libertain view to never exert aggression but in direct self-defense. i believe it was the policy for AMerica all along to remain neutral, unless attacked directly. no aid, no allies.. complete neutrality. 'commerce with all, entangling alliances with none' was the early motto of the American founders. it was British common law that introduced the founders to these concepts to begin with! the biblical concept would be that a role model is a more effective influence then a bully.

if, as i personally believe, we are a divinely inspired nation(because of our heritage), then we should grant more faith and confidence to the Lord, who is the ultimate arbitor of justice- and who does infact have some dominion over man. this is my fundemental rule on the marketplace, on human behavior, and on foreign relations. i know athiests and agnostics will disagree on the method, but will generally agree on the outcome. because in the end, freedom of expression, and self determination, ironically are what grease the skids of capitalism.

but specifically.. i notice that liberals are very contemptous about the US relationship with Israel. personally i agree! i think we should keep it 'plutonic.' but why not with everyone(even the EU)? we aid all the Arab nations around Israel, which are fundementally contentious... to what end? we ought not be any more involved with anyone outside what commerce and trade permit us. in that same vein.. why is our Federal Reserve bailing out Greece? why are are we still protecting Germany? why should we have any role in Afghanistan? republicans have taken a lot of flack.. but liberals created this notion of making the world 'safe for democracy'. they would have put is in Darphur if given the chance...

if you have 2 friends, who are fighting with eachother, what happens when you pick sides? you lose a friend. but if you remain neutral, you become a more effective mediator, able to maintain civil relations with both sides.

personally i think thats the foreign/economic policy we should strive for- if you want to live in a truly free society, you have to accept SOME RISK of unforseen circumstances(ie terrorism/unforseen personal calamity). whatever your fear is, let it go, embrace the inevitability of unforseen cicumstance. otherwise, stay out of the way!! only then will the two polar extremes, classic (american)liberals and traditional conservatives find a grey area.

and just to finalize my point.. does it appear, anyways, that a healthy majority of Iranians would rather trade computers and cell phones with the west then weapons? we may not even need sactions. if given enough time, the grassroots uprising will overthrow the current leadership. could it be, that if we just stayed out of the way, things may favorably fall into place?? its a risk that apparently current libs and conservatives, in America, are unwilling to take. but this also extends to policy both foreign and domestic! its a strange parallel.. but neither party will accept any room for divine providence. it's no wonder we have a history of authoritarian idealogues run amok- we dont believe in freedom anymore!!! its pure centralized planning from here on out

I think you make interesting and valuable points.

Would Iran want nukes ( if they do, and I would ) if they were not being threatened daily, and already had a neighbor attacked on maybes and what ifs ?

Perhaps the best way to exert influence out into the world would be to simply say, hey we would love to trade with you... except for this little thing

free choice on everyones part

I like the idea...

I disagree that it was ever the policy of America, but that is a debate for another time...

How would you suggest the US move towards this idea ?

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
DID kill hundreds of thousands of people

U.S actions 'killed', or 'led to the death of'? Happily blurring concepts...

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US didn't put that powder keg there, and it didn't light it on purpose - folly and incompetence achieved that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh, that must come as quite a comfort to the families of the dead.

Err, well why don't you try comforting the families of Iraqis blown up at marketplaces by telling them they should feel no ill will to Al Qaeda - but instead place all that blame on Bush! Tell them that in effect, George W Bush pressed that trigger.

They would find you perverse and stupid.

Heads should roll

Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party! We had intel that there was an Al Qaeda busboy at that party!"

And yes, they do indeed find your line of reasoning perverse and stupid. It's why so many of them are now joining Al Qaeda in the fight against the American presence in the area.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
Sig

( hate to ask , but wth ... )

If we didn't act, do you think nothing would happen? Would the void that filled the space we don't occupy be filled up w/ peaceful, caring, and freedom loving influences ?

Looking at how other nations run things, I'd rather we influence the issue than others.

Taking us out of the equation doesn't always ensure the shiny happy you're trying to portray.

That has a familiar ring to it... Something along the lines of

"We're not telling them what to think; we're showing them how."

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KPO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:10 PM

Quote:
Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party!

Not in your wildest dreams.

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:16 PM

Quote:
Betcha didn't know we've been so busy, huh?

Have to agree with rappy again. You give no consideration to lives saved by war, entire countries saved by war even - like South Korea, 50million+ people, 7th biggest economy in the world? The positive outcomes are ignored by you, you just tally up the body count.

Heads should roll

RUE

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:43 PM

"U.S actions 'killed', or 'led to the death of'? Happily blurring concepts..."

DID KILL. Actively and callously, and negligently and callously.

You forget that after the US defeated Iraq it was LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE to maintain peace and order in the country. Any deaths that occured are the US's fault, both in fact and by law.

Got that now ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party!

Not in your wildest dreams.

Heads should roll

Nope, NOT in my "wildest dreams"; in our ACTUAL REALITY.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:03 PM

As I told Gino elsewhere, most people here agree with him about America. But violence is not the answer anywhere.

I agree with most everything said, except for the call to violence, but I also think a lot of good is ignored here out of, who knows, maybe guilt? America's done a lot of bad, but also a lot of good, and I agree that, if we were taken out of the equation, nobody can say how many would have died, been persecuted, raped, etc.

Not excusing America for its faults, just saying we're one nation out of many, and nobody's perfect. Thank you, KPO, for the perspective. Beyond that, I won't get into this; I know this is an anti-authoritarian-figure bunch--maybe it goes back to Firefly, I dunno. But I do know that there are many who disagree--and I don't mean just the "America, great nation" idjits who can see no wrong.

I'm a middle-of-the-roader on this one; I hate what we've done, but I don't see us as the Evil Empire. All empires are evil, we're just one of many and because of technology and it being a global village, our empire has had more reach. Another will no doubt come along, maybe in our lifetime, for people to hate equally.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:41 PM

Quote:
If we didn't act, do you think nothing would happen? Would the void that filled the space we don't occupy be filled up w/ peaceful, caring, and freedom loving influences ?

Rappy, in MOST cases... especially those in our "sphere of influence"... a socialist government would have been established, whose aims were generally fairly modest: LAND REFORM or NATIONALIZATION OF RESOURCES. We have several examples of what might have happened: Cuba, Brazil (under moderate socialist Lula), Chile (under left-of-center Michelle Bachelet, who was wildly popular and secured consistent growth, but was termed out in 2010), Evo, Chavez, Ortega (in the '80s) etc. In other words, a lot of the countries might have wound up looking a lot like Germany or France in terms of ownership, nationalization, unionization etc.

Of all of the countries in S and C America, the ONE nation we have NOT meddled with in any way is Costa Rica... and it is a success story compared to its neighbors. So THERE is your story of "what would have happened".

Instead, we allied ourself with Pinochet in Chile (to retain Kennecot Copper for IBM, Ford, GM and other big copper users), Somoza in Nicaragua, a military junta in Ecuador in 1964, a rotating set of military rulers in Brazil who raided the national treasury and drove the nation into poverty.... in other words, when faced with a choice between democratically-elected reformers and socialists, we allied ourselves with dictators, tyrants, murderers, torturers, and rapists.

ALL COUNTRIES HAVE DONE BETTER UNDER SOCIALIST RULE. Growth is higher, education and medical care is better, people live longer, huge disparities in wealth are reduced and the average family has a more secure, happier life. So please, don't hurt your little pinhead brain thinking that we somehow kept things from being "worse". WE were worse, and it was all for higher profits. Not "democracy" or "freedom" or any other little fantasy you tell yourself. People like YOU ... scum suckers and parasites... would have fared very poorly, its true. But the working people, the people who really PRODUCE stuff, would have done better.

KPO

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 6:24 PM

Quote:
In other words, a lot of the countries might have wound up looking a lot like Germany or France

Haha, interesting that you cite two countries that suffered US invasion and occupation as 'if only' success stories.

Quote:
ALL COUNTRIES HAVE DONE BETTER UNDER SOCIALIST RULE. Growth is higher, education and medical care is better, people live longer, huge disparities in wealth are reduced and the average family has a more secure, happier life. So please, don't hurt your little pinhead brain thinking that we somehow kept things from being "worse". WE were worse, and it was all for higher profits. Not "democracy" or "freedom" or any other little fantasy you tell yourself.

Remember the South Korea vs. North Korea comparison as well.

Heads should roll