Is the U S shirking it’s duty to democracy ?

[Greatest I am]

Well those are nice platitudes, but "freedom" as most people think of it as is largely a modern, Western democratic concept. Sure, there are forms of democracy which are exclusive, but then again all systems are exclusive.

Culture is a form of control, per se, since culture usually has a set of right and wrong. There is nothing wrong with "control" (for the lack of a better word) when dealing with large populations.


and yeah the way you format your posts is annoying to look at.





No, we probably shouldn't invade them in the first place.


if we were to "right" all the "wrongs" in the world it would totally destroy our nation just in terms of logistics.

If the democratic leaders here cannot count on the help of it's world partners as indicated in the O P then democracy is bound to die. All causes without champions doe.

The U S is not alone. it is just in the leadership role.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So it should be the responsibility of the United States .

Read the O P again. It says the U S and it's allies.
The U S is a world citizen. Not the only world citizen.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Looks like a good thread...skimmed over it,both views have good points.
All politics aside...the innocent civilians of the backwards nations have to be considered,,its the bottom line.

Trapped in a way of life with no escape...We..when I say we I mean modern nations cant sit by and do nothing,,that's sick.plain and simple...while it is easy to say we need to mind our own business...a few videos that will make you puke will change your mind.

Ignoring a problem doesn't fix it..these fucked up nations consist of people...these people are treated like garbage...your rights consist of nothing in many of these places....To even mention the leader is less then a positive manner can get you tortured{and I do mean tortured} for years....Kind of hard to get new leadership without a "revolution"...When the people get sick of the abuse we offer help...when the abuse gets so bad genocide occurs we jump in...Now how is that wrong?

The argument is we should mind our own business and not meddle.
If you saw 5 guys kicking a guy to death do you turn your head as it isnt your business or do put a stop to it.
Its the same principal just alot of map in between locations...and the abuse is on a much grander scale.

Since we can make a difference we should....We dont do these alone by the way, many modern nations are right there helping the US......But People just want to bitch about the US.....Whats sadder is most are from the US...They need a free plane ticket the Mideast for a fast vacation,they will have a different view after getting back home.
Argument number 2...its the oil......as much ass as we have whipped over there..we could supply our own oil..we dont........WE BUY OIL...we dont whip ass for the oil........Go fill your gas tank and sing about how cheap fuel is.

I hate to see involvement as much as the next guy,but to do nothing is just wrong..if a few years of war can change the life of millions upon millions for the future then it needs to be done..

Its easy to play armchair politician while sitting in comfort and not experiencing the abuse,just remember you ended up where you are by chance......dont be greedy....you like this way of life so help spread it around

Well said. Welcome.

All I can add is a quick quote that I like.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

We are all in this together, alone.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Here's an important point/question that I haven't seen raised here.

Why should the United States get involved in conflicts around the world, especially ones wherethe conflicts are rooted in internal strife? Would we appreciate it if there was an internal conflict here, and France, Russia, the UK, or others decided to "intervene" on the behalf of one side or the other?

How is it the duty of the United States to force our will on another sovereign nation? I gave a list of countries ruled by either a single party, monarchy, theocracy, or dictatorship. Should we involve ourselves in their business and tell them how they should run their countries? We can't force democracy on countries just because we happen to think it would be better for them. It has to be something that they do on their own, not something that is decided for them by outside forces.

If people are unhappy enough with the way things are being run in their country, there is a good chance that they will revolt on their own, without anyone else's help. That's how the United States was formed for crying out loud. Our founding fathers had such an issue with how they were being ruled by England that they rose up and declared themselves to be a sovereign nation. Yes, I do realize that we had assistance from the French in a few different ways, but the fact of the matter remains that it was a decision that was made by the majority of American colonists, not something that France, Spain, or Portugal decided for us.

So in answer to the original question. No, the United States is not shirking its duty to democracy. In fact, I challenge the premise of the question at its roots. What duty does the United States have to democracy? I say none. The United States isn't even a democracy by definition. The United States is a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic that utilizes a representative democracy as part of its checks and balances. So no, the United States is not a democracy, and those that t think otherwise are either ignorant, woefully uninformed, or both.

The United States has a duty to its citizens first and foremost. It does not have a duty to the rest of the world, especially if it comes at the expense of its own citizens.



Nowhere in there do I see anything about imposing democracy on the rest of the world. Nowhere. If you can find it, please let me know because I'm obviously missing something.

Yes you are. McCarthyism.

It showed how determined we were and are to push the systems we adhere to. McCarthyism just went too far.

As to democracy in the world. To not push it means that it's enemies are winning.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Pray tell how you make a profit out of war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

It's got some massive overheads. Bear in mind that if we accept the total cost of the Iraq war as 700-800 Billion, the remaining oil in the entire world has been estimated to only value up to 100-200 billion.

http://www.fleetstreetinvest.co.uk/oil/oil-outlook/oil-world-worth-00027.html

Where else do you make a profit in war? Prolonged military occupation? Selling Big Macs? Rebuilding the hospitals and roads and schools you knocked down?

All of the above are profitable for the warring nation.
Look at Greece.

Regards
DL

 

[Zorak]

All of the above are profitable for the warring nation.
Look at Greece.

Regards
DL

Your post makes no sense and is purposefully misleading. I want you to show me where the USA is making a profit by joining and creating wars that cost billions, if not trillions to execute?

A country like Greece can find itself in financial difficulty due to financial mismanagement, not because they don't foreign join wars. Anyway, they are still locked in a bitter conflict with Turkey over Cyrprus, that certainly hasn't helped their recession.

 

[Greatest I am]

Your post makes no sense and is purposefully misleading. I want you to show me where the USA is making a profit by joining and creating wars that cost billions, if not trillions to execute?

A country like Greece can find itself in financial difficulty due to financial mismanagement, not because they don't foreign join wars. Anyway, they are still locked in a bitter conflict with Turkey over Cyrprus, that certainly hasn't helped their recession.

If the U S war machine did not profit from war, then that machine would fail. have you seen any failures of the military supply line?

Canada and the U S set the standard in WWII. We waited to insure that we would become the war supply leaders before we entered WWII.

Regards
DL

 

[Zorak]

If the U S war machine did not profit from war, then that machine would fail. have you seen any failures of the military supply line?

Canada and the U S set the standard in WWII. We waited to insure that we would become the war supply leaders before we entered WWII.

Regards
DL

War is an expense, not a private business that turns in quarterly profits. And it has certainly played a role in the dire situation that the USA finds itself in terms of debt.

 

[retro]

Yes you are. McCarthyism.

It showed how determined we were and are to push the systems we adhere to. McCarthyism just went too far.

As to democracy in the world. To not push it means that it's enemies are winning.

Regards
DL

McCarthyism? Do you even know what the fuck that was? It was a witch hunt for supposed communists. Please explain to me what exactly that has to do with this conversation. I'm not a McCarthyist, I'm a non-interventionist. A view that was shared by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams. I think I'm in pretty good company there. It's also a belief that I share with Ron and Rand Paul, amongst others currently and in history.

Please understand the actual definitions of the things you accuse people of, lest you come across as an even bigger fool than you have already. McCarthyism isn't a sentiment that has anything to do with imposing democracy on anyone.

 

[Tim]

It's also a belief that I share with Ron and Rand Paul, amongst others currently and in history.

Don't forget your favorite Paul.... Ru Paul

 

[retro]

Don't forget your favorite Paul.... Ru Paul

Don't make me beat you up. :willy_nilly:

 

[Greatest I am]

McCarthyism? Do you even know what the fuck that was? It was a witch hunt for supposed communists. Please explain to me what exactly that has to do with this conversation. I'm not a McCarthyist, I'm a non-interventionist. A view that was shared by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams. I think I'm in pretty good company there. It's also a belief that I share with Ron and Rand Paul, amongst others currently and in history.

Please understand the actual definitions of the things you accuse people of, lest you come across as an even bigger fool than you have already. McCarthyism isn't a sentiment that has anything to do with imposing democracy on anyone.

I see you as the fool if you do not see mcCarthyism as an over exuberant protection of democracy.

If not then lets see your definition.

Regards
DL

 

[retro]

I see you as the fool if you do not see mcCarthyism as an over exuberant protection of democracy.

If not then lets see your definition.

Regards
DL

1) It was a "defense" against a communist influence in the United States during the Cold War. It was little more than a witch hunt.

2) McCarthyism has absolutely NOTHING to do with forcing democracy on any country. Which is the premise of your entire post.

Please try again though. You're amusing me with your patently untrue and completely misleading assertions. You're trying to deflect my original question.

What right does the United States have to try and force democracy (or our own Federal Constitutional Republic that utilizes a Representative Democracy) on any nation? Please answer that question.

 

[Greatest I am]

1) It was a "defense" against a communist influence in the United States during the Cold War. It was little more than a witch hunt.

2) McCarthyism has absolutely NOTHING to do with forcing democracy on any country. Which is the premise of your entire post.

Please try again though. You're amusing me with your patently untrue and completely misleading assertions. You're trying to deflect my original question.

What right does the United States have to try and force democracy (or our own Federal Constitutional Republic that utilizes a Representative Democracy) on any nation? Please answer that question.

You quite easy to amuse when you make up your own shit for what I said.

Get the quote where I suggest forcing democracy on a people.

Regards
DL

 

[Tim]

What right does the United States have to try and force democracy (or our own Federal Constitutional Republic that utilizes a Representative Democracy) on any nation? Please answer that question.

Nobody is saying it's a right.

But it's in our own best interest, right? I mean we wouldn't survive very long if the world fell apart around us.

 

[retro]

You quite easy to amuse when you make up your own shit for what I said.

Get the quote where I suggest forcing democracy on a people.

Regards
DL

That's the entire premise of this thread... even though it wasn't explicitly stated. You asked if the United States was "shirking its duty to democracy" by not policing the world and advocating a specific type of government. If that wasn't your intention, then you should have stated that.

 

[Greatest I am]

That's the entire premise of this thread... even though it wasn't explicitly stated. You asked if the United States was "shirking its duty to democracy" by not policing the world and advocating a specific type of government. If that wasn't your intention, then you should have stated that.

Advocating is not forcing now is it?

Regards
DL

 

[retro]

Advocating through military force is the same as forcing.

 

[Greatest I am]

Advocating through military force is the same as forcing.

I agree.

That is still not what I advocated.

Regards
DL

 

[retro]

I agree.

That is still not what I advocated.

Regards
DL

facilitate an advance on the switch from military intervention, to a more police style intervention with military intervention, as required.

Sure sounds like it.