WTF is wrong with this country?

[ck_taft325is]

Are you OK if the dictator is starving his people to death? (N. Korea and many others)
What about not protecting human rights in general? (China, N. Korea, Burma, and a number of other countries.)


At what point is the US going to say, "Fuck off, deal with it yourself."

We get all the negatives and virtually nothing positive from being the World's Police.

I'm not actually. I think good men should step in. Somewhere along the line of history we became more concerned with our PR instead of our ethics and humanity. I don't care of people like me, per se but would rather them respect me for doing what is right.

So to answer your question, no, I'm not okay with it. But recognize there is a balance to what is actually attainable and "do-able" when it comes to world politics and working with other countries. You have to let some societies figure their shit out and it's a damned shame that innocent people die in the process but, this is life in general despite how sad and terrible it can be. At the same time good men cannot stand idly by while atrocities on grand scales are occurring, in my opinion.

[Fusion]

And there were loads of warnings over the past month.

[mr.vang]

it has to do with our high oil cost..

[mrsleeve]

it has to do with our high oil cost..

this shit again??

Libya has about 2% of global production out put, (the Saudis can flip a few valves and make up that production value 3 or 4 times over) we here in the states get about 400k barrels a day. Libya is not hurting our oil prices here per say. The region as whole being unstable as fuck is what is driving the shit up.

Now on the other hand, europe gets all the oil production from Libya.........................................

[Fusion]

[rwh11385]

The point I am trying to make is that we have a fiscal problem in this country. Fox News, the Republican Party and mainstream "conservatives" are quick to criticize 3 million in federal spending for NPR, but won't say a damn thing about the trillion dollars a year we spend on the defense budget and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House even spent considerable time debating the issue, and recently voted to defund NPR. The Dems aren't any better.

The fact that the person who ordered the attacks on Libya was the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize, further adds to my complete and utter confusion. It's all fucked up. That is my point.

Sorry, the comparison you were attempting to make made no sense because not everyone cares to pay attention to said sources. Albeit NPR's funding is majority not grants anyway and almost post similar info to what you did about that, I'd argue that this is not troubling that most $$ for it comes from member stations. If you were trying to say guvment ought to be giving more, that's silly.

But media's crying over 3 mil for NPR is stupid. It's just a red herring to avoid dealing with real problems of pension funding, medicare expenses, and misappropriation of labor supply/demand. (Need to fix benefit systems or re-train workforce for today's needs but that is hard work, so rather argue about pointless shit to distract voters). And most are easy to get to worry about what talking heads tell them to be concerned about.

US's place as dominant military and economic power puts it in the big kid on the playground position and although some countries complain when we step in, they also expect us to when shit gets whack. (But other powers were also drawn in to action along with us). Lots of people have debt or economic issues but messed up shit still to hard to let go. US isn't equal opportunity to all human rights violations but has to sometimes choose battles. Eventually, through progression of human rights through market inclusion and then also violence as well, hopefully the world will be a better and more peaceful place.

We all know Obama's Nobel prize was a joke for not doing anything but giving some speeches. Irony is pretty funny though.

[mr.vang]

this shit again??

Libya has about 2% of global production out put, (the Saudis can flip a few valves and make up that production value 3 or 4 times over) we here in the states get about 400k barrels a day. Libya is not hurting our oil prices here per say. The region as whole being unstable as fuck is what is driving the shit up.

Now on the other hand, europe gets all the oil production from Libya.........................................

its not libya that has oil, its the country U.S. is siding with..

[z31maniac]

I'm not actually. I think good men should step in. Somewhere along the line of history we became more concerned with our PR instead of our ethics and humanity. I don't care of people like me, per se but would rather them respect me for doing what is right.

So to answer your question, no, I'm not okay with it. But recognize there is a balance to what is actually attainable and "do-able" when it comes to world politics and working with other countries. You have to let some societies figure their shit out and it's a damned shame that innocent people die in the process but, this is life in general despite how sad and terrible it can be. At the same time good men cannot stand idly by while atrocities on grand scales are occurring, in my opinion.

Are you running for a political office? That sounds like what a politician would say.

Basically all you gave us was, "some countries should figure it out on there own, and others we should step in."

I want to know what the tipping point is between action and inaction, since on a purely philosophical level, you are OK intervening based on X in case Y, but not in case Z.

[Raxe]

Are you running for a political office? That sounds like what a politician would say.

Basically all you gave us was, "some countries should figure it out on there own, and others we should step in."

I want to know what the tipping point is between action and inaction, since on a purely philosophical level, you are OK intervening based on X in case Y, but not in case Z.

There are no written guidelines and there doesn't need to be. If we cannot predict the future, how could anyone possibly set out strict rules for dealing with every individual future conflict?

In the same way a traffic cop can choose to let some slide, warn some and ticket others, the USA can choose to deal with individual cases as they happen.

[joshh]

Sometimes you just have to let countries figure shit out for themselves.

We need to stop interfering and let the Muslim world deal with it out on their own. Every time we stick our foot in it they hate us more and more...even after they agree to let us interfere. Fuck em.

[mar1t1me]

We get all the negatives and virtually nothing positive from being the World's Police.

Ding ding ding!

[Raxe]

Ding ding ding!

That's one of the most ridiculous statements made in this thread. Sure, I suppose they gain nothing if you don't count national security, implementing western influence and government in foreign countries, puppet leaders, resource contracts and allies. It's safe to assume everything the US does on a global scale is done strictly out of the goodness of the Presidents heart.



You don't become the most powerful country in the world by giving everything away with zero return. Stop looking at involvement in foreign affairs as short term charity work and start looking at it as the long term investment it is.

[mrsleeve]

That's one of the most ridiculous statements made in this thread. Sure, I suppose they gain nothing if you don't count national security, implementing western influence and government in foreign countries, puppet leaders, resource contracts and allies. It's safe to assume everything the US does on a global scale is done strictly out of the goodness of the Presidents heart.



You don't become the most powerful country in the world by giving everything away with zero return. Stop looking at involvement in foreign affairs as short term charity work and start looking at it as the long term investment it is.

do we actually agree for once ????

[mar1t1me]

That's one of the most ridiculous statements made in this thread. Sure, I suppose they gain nothing if you don't count national security, implementing western influence and government in foreign countries, puppet leaders, resource contracts and allies. It's safe to assume everything the US does on a global scale is done strictly out of the goodness of the Presidents heart.

Uhhh.....no one said the other countries don't reap benefits. They get the positives, but who pays the bill for our high-minded spreading of democracy?

You don't become the most powerful country in the world by giving everything away with zero return.

You're right. You become the former most powerful country in the world. The wealth doesn't come back to the taxpayers that foot the bill.

Stop looking at involvement in foreign affairs as short term charity work and start looking at it as the long term investment it is.

Long term investment, huh? Investments are supposed to pay dividends.

[Raxe]

You clearly cannot see the forest for the trees, so I'll try to dumb it down for you. The US helps take out foreign leaders whom they see as a potential threat (such as cutting off a resource) or have difficulty working with. They set up a new government in the country with leaders they can control and influence. This ensures continued access to resources and diplomatic relations. It's a long term investment.

Do the other countries reap the benefits as well? Sure, but the other countries are ALSO indebted to the US to some degree. Look at Canada and Britain: America went to war in Afghanistan and they were obligated to follow.

Don't be so naive as to think the US government does everything willy-nilly out of compassion and generosity with no strings attached.