Thread: USA government gone rogue (well... not exactly. L.)

Originally Posted by diogen_

How are you going to withstand such a threat without American aid and army? It sounds next to impossible. Remember, the Axis of evil is not slumbering

I'll take my chances without America! The silly myth that it "saved" Europe from the Nazis is just nonsense propagated by Hollywood. The USSR would have got around to it, it would just have taken a bit longer. As for the ideology and the possible expansionism of the USSR after the war: That also didn't worry me then, as a child, any more than modern Russia does today. It turned out that my country's only two major incidents with the USSR were caused in connection with US involvement. Plus, after the radical Bolsheviks and Stalin, what's scary about the USSR? I even visited on holidays in my childhood. Quirky and different, no shopping destination.. But not scary. But according to the US at the time, the scariest place on earth.

The whole idea with NATO is a bit like a Mafia protection scheme...!

I remember when people in the UK were genuinely expected to support invasion of Iraq, and send troops, because "Saddam's nukes could reach London". How totally proposterous! And then it turned out that he didn't even have any nukes. And the reason why he would randomly target London was never explained either. Makes 0 logical sense.
And oh yes, North Korea could *maybe* reach Hawaii with one of their nukes, that they may or may not have. Never mind the fact that there is absolutely no logical reason for them to do it, and they never saidthat they would.

—Japan has tried to get the US to leave Okinawa island for decades, but it hangs on like a leech, against the wishes of the locals and the Japanese government.
—Afghanistan won't sign an extension of US bases, but they won't take no for an answer and probably made sure that somebody who'll sign the agreement won the Afghan election
—Germans loathe it, but because of the war stigma, they can't speak up. Despite the fact that modern Germany has the most peace-loving and anti-war population of all of Europe.

I don't see why the US can't just leave the rest of the world alone. Or if it must meddle in other countries, meddle in bordering countries, i.e. Canada and Mexico. That's at least somewhat understandable.

But across the Atlantic or the other side of the earth?! There is no excuse other than imperialism, general evilness and greed!

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You probably never consider the possibility of a pink elephant electing himself

Not my business, and not yours. As long as its not a direct threat, it's not our business. And no country in the Middle East or Africa is a realistic threat to Europe at present time.

And the fact is: Iraq is a total dump today. Dangerous, criminal, full of violent and dangerous gangs. Syria was considerably better before the Western backed uprising. It really wasn't bad.

Likewise Libya in many ways was the most advanced nation in North Africa. Afghanistan today is an extremely dangerous and violent place. Marginally better for women, maybe, but at what price? Anyway, it's not for us to dictate, how Afghans should live their lives, in their country. It's arrogant to think we understand their culture and history.

And saving women was just an invented reason to meddle there anyway. It sounds good, and it's hard to challenge.
There are plenty of places in Africa where women have it as bad or worse than it was for women under the Taliban. But because there are no oil pipeline or strategic importance, those African women are left to their own devices.

Originally Posted by Hanna

And saving women was just an invented reason to meddle there anyway. It sounds good, and it's hard to challenge.
There are plenty of places in Africa where women have it as bad or worse than it was for women under the Taliban. .

as far as i know, the US attacked Afghanistan not to save Afghan woman, but in retaliation to the 9/11 attack and for the ruling Taliban refusing to stop housing and protecting Al Qaida. Unless you really believe it was all a conspiracy, it is hardly disputed that the twin-towers did come down, that Al-Qaida admitted to the attack, and that the Taliban were housing them. So I would say that for once the US had a valid point that was not directly related with oil.

I do agree with you though that the Irak evidence was largely fabricated; and simply a pretext for war.

From a philosophical point of view, the question arises of how to deal with brutal, torturous and dictatorial regimes. (Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's Irak, the abusive Gaddafi regime, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, North Korea and many more). Personally I do not know the answer - but it is not as easy as saying; it is an internal affair, let them sort it out themselves. History might judge us harshly for just standing by watching the abuse next door and do nothing. Remember the millions slaughtered in Rwanda? Nobody helped them - surely you cannot want that?

On the other hand you do not want a self-interested bully (the USA) that applies justice only as itself sees fit and for reasons beyond humitarian (eg oil etc). The ideal would be to really have a neutral / effective worldbody with a mandate to interfere, but interfere in a consistant manner. Unfortunately the UN with its five permanent members - each always seeking to protect their own interest - does not fit the demand any longer - they are obsolete as a world policing body. But doing something is still better then doing nothing.