The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[El Kabong]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

[TitoFan]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

You and Kirk get into some heavy-duty arguments, with multiple charts, figures, and whatnots being zinged back and forth. I tend to keep my arguments more generalized.

On U.S. foreign policy, my only point is that sometimes the best policy is no intervention at all. It is my humble opinion that the U.S. needs to pick and choose a little bit better where it intervenes and for what reason. This way, the U.S. won't be faced with choices about whether or not to leave "X" dictator in power, whether or not to use military force, when to leave and when to stay... and numerous other decisions, which yes... are usually unpopular no matter WHAT they are.

This is a delicate balancing act. We are no longer in the days of the Cold War. We no longer have the specter of the Soviet Union aiming their missiles at us. There are less instances where the U.S. "has" to intervene to protect Americans' way of life. There might be some instances where political and economic interests are skewed to seem like national security concerns.... and this is exactly what gets us in trouble with the rest of the world.

Yes, the U.S. is still the world's greatest superpower. But it's no longer a matter of "who cares what the rest of the world thinks." Thinking like that is not generally acceptable among great and open minds.

We can no longer afford fiascos like the search for the famous WMD. The world's not that stupid, and it offends other countries' leaders that the U.S. would think that.

[IamInuit]

They are both Colonialists. One having battled the other not to be colonized.

[Gandalf]

You are appeasing US foreign policy too much, Tito. America is really no different to Nazi Germany in that it invades countries without due process. These are the kinds of war crimes that Nazi's were hung for at Nuremburg. If you apply the same rules to the US then it is a war crime state and the leading proponent of international terror. There are no two ways about and Britain is equally responsible. Even in the case of Libya Obama should have been impeached. There was no due process for the US contribution.

Then you factor in policies such as extraordinary rendition, being able to kill anyone anywhere, Guantanamo, torture. America is a brutal and fascistic state and the level of disrespect of human rights and international law is unprecedented. One shouldn't excuse what is so appalling. You try telling the family of a loved one killed by a drone that it isn't so bad. You try telling the tens of millions killed in pointless open and secret wars since WW2 that it is just misunderstood. You try telling those suffering under dictatorships supported by the US that life ain't so bad.

It is a horrible country and global opinion would largely agree with me. You cannot argue with polls showing that most Euroeans regard America is the greatest menace to world peace. America must be so misunderstood. Those Arabs that agree must be so deluded. America could never wish harm upon the globe on an unprecedented level.

[TitoFan]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.

The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.

But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.

But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.

The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.

But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.

I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:

The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

[VictorCharlie]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

[TitoFan]

That was in response to Miles, I gather.

[Gandalf]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

International consensus, not commiting acts of aggression. Iraq was a grab for oil and it failed. It was an obvious breach of international law and Bush and Blair are still yet to be held account for their crimes. They are obvious crimes. Fabricating evidence, war of aggression, acts of terror and torture etc.

Nations should do what is in their own interests, but force has no relevance to such an argument. That is criminal and abusive.

[Gandalf]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.

The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.

But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.

But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.

The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.

But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.

I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:

The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Again I strongly disagree with you Tito. You falsely trumpet the naive and indoctrinated belief that the USA has some kind of pursuit of nobility on its mind, when most of the evidence points in quite the opposite direction. Do your research on Reagan and his covert operations in central America in the 1980's. Keeping it in modern times alone just look at which nation has most tried to restrict due international process in the UN with the veto. The US is the guilty partner by far. Russia tails far down in the list. Then if the US gets angry with France for vetoing Iraq they get angry and say 'do it our way or you will suffer' offering incentives for the likes of Russia to commit terrorist acts in Chechnya just as long as they support it. These are mafia tactics and this is America.

America didn't give a shit about the people of Iraq whatsoever. It was just another in the grand imperial design. First you have manifest destiny and wipe out the natives, and then you embark it on a global scale and have military bases spread throughout the empire. It is no trick of the imagination. Iraq was an illegal war based on Nuremburg Principles and furthermore it had little international support. Most in the world were against it and regarded America as a menace. Other 100, 000 deaths, continued torture, bombings and uncertainty are testament to how immoral it all was. And let's not forget how poor the US made Iraq with sanctions which only really affected the general population. America has never cared about the people of Iraq.

It isn't a system designed to care. It is a psychopathic war machine that has to justify that ridiculous military spending in some way. And Romney thinks it needs more!