Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

American Superiority is Good for the World

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    The original poster (and I know its like 7 months ago) said

    "America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel"

    Now lets look back at Vietnam. What happened there?? Hmm let us see, America refused to have democratic elections. Why? Oh yes they were afraid of the person who would win. These are the folks who blab on about "the right to decide form of government". For me, thats American democracy in a nutshell. You get the vote, if America likes how you will vote.


  • Options
    #93
    KERPAL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭KERPAL


    turgon wrote: »
    The original poster (and I know its like 7 months ago) said

    "America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel"

    Now lets look back at Vietnam. What happened there?? Hmm let us see, America refused to have democratic elections. Why? Oh yes they were afraid of the person who would win. These are the folks who blab on about "the right to decide form of government". For me, thats American democracy in a nutshell. You get the vote, if America likes how you will vote.

    In all fairness, the motives behind Vietnam were perfectly acceptable, prevent the spread of communism.
    However it was a admittedly a disastrous blip in US politics. They in no way planned the move in any adequate detail, resulting in dire consequences.
    Bar Vietnam, i would have to agree with the OP and say

    "America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel"


  • Options
    #94
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Jesus, satire just passes you right by, doesn't it?

    NTM

    Do you agree with what I called out 'KERPAL' on?


  • Options
    #95
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    KERPAL wrote: »

    In all fairness, the motives behind Vietnam were perfectly acceptable, prevent the spread of communism.
    However it was a admittedly a disastrous blip in US politics. They in no way planned the move in any adequate detail, resulting in dire consequences.
    Bar Vietnam, i would have to agree with the OP and say

    "America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel"

    Don't forget the current blip, or should I say blips.

    So....


    The US has been a bastion of good behaviour to all nations since 'the years' that this policy has been in force?

    Who decides what nations are rebelling? The US or The UN?

    When was the last time that the US applied this creed to themselves and their own actions?


  • Options
    #96
    KERPAL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭KERPAL


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Don't forget the current blip, or should I say blips.

    So....


    The US has been a bastion of good behaviour to all nations since 'the years' that this policy has been in force?

    Who decides what nations are rebelling? The US or The UN?

    When was the last time that the US applied this creed to themselves and their own actions?

    What current blip??
    I dont see how Iraq was not justified, life would be alot worse for Iraqis had america not intervened. So what if they have some "oil" now, im a safer man for it.
    Afghanistan, i think you'll find the ousting of the Taliban was an admirable task and one appreciated by the majority of Afghans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    duggie-89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭duggie-89


    SpAcEd OuT wrote: »
    But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes. What would stop countries like China invading Taiwan etc. You need one superpower that everyone listens to in order to keep order and to decide what is acceptable and what is not. The League of Nations never worked because countries could never fully agree on whether firstly a countries behavior was acceptable or not and secondly what action to take against said country this led to conflict and instability.

    Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

    maybe you could imply your logical to domestic affairs, one leader, one super party and a strong military and police force to put people into line if they "upset" the superpower.

    now that just might work..... and a country with that sort of set up never done any harm or started any wars......... Hitler for example he never started ww2 in europe.

    IMO the security of modern world peace has been damaged by america beyong telling how much. in south american, asia, africa etc the countless dicatorships ands now terrorist organistaions that have been funded by the usa or some of its arms is countless, what is needed is a way a few large super powers or blocs to balance each other out. russia is on the riase again and so is china, the three of them will maybe place of each other. i think the usa knows this hence why going into iraq, seize the oil feilds before the othert superpowers get there act together and truly stop use from doing it before.


    and just a wee randomn fact did you know that there was a democracy in IRAN after ww2 but guess who eventually backed its downfall........ any guess??

    ere is a link honestly check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYutojeC5Kk


  • Options
    #98
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    KERPAL wrote: »
    What current blip??

    The Iraq was a war of aggression. The US went in with no intention to free anyone.

    I think the fact that they tried to retroactively justify it, by saying they were trying to free the Iraqi people, when there first reason was something different. They even laughable tried to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, despite the fact Osama hated Saddam and wanted him dead, as he was secular leader.

    America has a lot more blips, a few have been mentioned in this thread. The US is no champion of democracy, human rights, justice or any of there other claims they make. They are a champion of there own self interest, like everyone else.
    KERPAL wrote: »
    I dont see how Iraq was not justified, life would be alot worse for Iraqis had america not intervened. So what if they have some "oil" now, im a safer man for it.

    No it didn't make anyone safer. Life for the vast majority of Iraqi's is far more dangerous. Then there are all the refugee's and dead.

    The incompetence of the invaders, have helped drive up oil prices, at a bare minimum there guilty of criminal incompetence.

    Also, Iraq was a threat to no one when the American's invaded. Sanctions neutered them as well as causing countless civilian deaths. There were no WMDs, Saddam was in no position to threaten anyone outside Iraq's borders (as well as Kurdistan). For the invasion to make anyone safer, Saddam had to be a threat, he wasn't one at all.
    KERPAL wrote: »
    Afghanistan, i think you'll find the ousting of the Taliban was an admirable task and one appreciated by the majority of Afghans.

    Different war, done for entirely different reasons.


  • Options
    #99
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    duggie-89 wrote: »
    and just a wee randomn fact did you know that there was a democracy in IRAN after ww2 but guess who eventually backed its downfall........ any guess??

    Arguably democracy in Iran fell in 1951 when the pro-Western Prime Minister Razmara was assasinated by a member of the Fedayan-e Islam, which started a number of assasinations. Mossadaq, overthrown in the 1953 CIA/MI6-sponsored coup, was actually directly appointed by the Shah.

    Poor old Razmara seems to be perpetually overlooked.

    NTM


  • Options
    #100
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    KERPAL wrote: »
    In all fairness, the motives behind Vietnam were perfectly acceptable, prevent the spread of communism.

    What you are saying KERPEL, is that the opinion of the American people in Vietnam was more important than the wishes of the populace. That is autocratic, and not democratic. There can be absolutely no doubt about this: The Americans thought their opinions were superior so did not allow the Vietnamese a chance to get what they want.

    I know Communism is terrible, but how could you describe the Vietnam War as anything better?


  • Options
    #101
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    KERPAL wrote: »
    What current blip??
    I dont see how Iraq was not justified, life would be alot worse for Iraqis had america not intervened. So what if they have some "oil" now, im a safer man for it.
    Afghanistan, i think you'll find the ousting of the Taliban was an admirable task and one appreciated by the majority of Afghans.

    With this answer you've proven yourself to be a troll.

    Or, at best, a Republican Party shill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    KERPAL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭KERPAL


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    With this answer you've proven yourself to be a troll.

    Or, at best, a Republican Party shill.

    It proves i have an opinion. Sorry ill reply to the other posts later, just dont have much time atm.


  • Options
    #103
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    KERPAL wrote: »
    It proves i have an opinion. Sorry ill reply to the other posts later, just dont have much time atm.

    Well as regards the Iraqis being better off, If someone would place statistics out on what cause more deaths - Saddam Husseins 24 year tenure or the Iraq War - it might provide interesting comparative .

    According to Wikipedia, different sources place Iraqi Casualties between 151,000 and one million. I doubt Saddam killed this many in his time (which was five times longer than the war)


  • Options
    #104
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    But there's two sides to every story - who killed the vast majority of the Iraqis?


  • Options
    #105
    positron
    Registered Users Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭positron


    SeanW wrote: »
    But there's two sides to every story - who killed the vast majority of the Iraqis?

    True, but usually one side of the story is true and other just someone trying to justify their mistake / cover their tracks etc.

    I guess vast majority of the Iraqis where killed by the fighting within the country after the war, which was due to collapse of law and order in the country, which was due to US army going in to get Saddam, which now appears to be based on non-existent evidence of WMD and most probably for the benefit of a few highly placed individuals with huge interest in oil, arms and reconstruction works..!


  • Options
    #106
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    According to this chap
    http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
    who the subtext says has a PhD in Iraqi History from Oxford,
    Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.

    That's a lot of executions.

    Note that the higher numbers such as The Lancet's million + include estimates of second and third-order knock-on effects of America's war on Iraq, not just amount of people killed directly by violence. In which case, one might want to consider the second-and-third order knock-on effects of Saddam's wars on Iran or Kuwait, the former of which rather raises Saddam's total rather a bit, or the knock-on effects of the executions (What happened their kids?)

    NTM


  • Options
    #107
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    SpAcEd OuT wrote: »
    I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

    America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

    America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

    America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

    American Superiority benefits does not the world.

    America running the world is like some one beats you up and steals your quarter pounder coming out of MacDonald's and wants to be thanked for protecting you from junk food.

    While Junk food may be bad for you, you do not what the town bully telling you what you can eat or cannot eat.

    It would only make you hate them and want to get your own back sooner or later.


  • Options
    #108
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    According to this chap
    http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
    who the subtext says has a PhD in Iraqi History from Oxford,



    That's a lot of executions.

    Note that the higher numbers such as The Lancet's million + include estimates of second and third-order knock-on effects of America's war on Iraq, not just amount of people killed directly by violence. In which case, one might want to consider the second-and-third order knock-on effects of Saddam's wars on Iran or Kuwait, the former of which rather raises Saddam's total rather a bit, or the knock-on effects of the executions (What happened their kids?)

    NTM

    Before I comment on your post, can you explain what is meant by "second + third order knock on effects"?


  • Options
    #109
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    KERPAL wrote: »
    It proves i have an opinion. Sorry ill reply to the other posts later, just dont have much time atm.

    Is that you Spaced Out?

    How's the gym going for you?


  • Options
    #110
    KERPAL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭KERPAL


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Is that you Spaced Out?

    How's the gym going for you?


    Emmmmmm, sorry, im lost?


  • Options
    #111
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Before I comment on your post, can you explain what is meant by "second + third order knock on effects"?

    Death not caused as a direct result of violence (i.e. person shot, blown up, knifed, that sort of thing) but which arguably only happened because of it. For example, let's say a power line gets blown up. The local pumping station loses power, and can no longer supply clean water. Locals adapt by drinking unfiltered water from an irrigation canal. Dad comes ill and dies of whatever disease. That's a second-order effect. Then the kids, not having a dad to care for them any more, end up trying to eke out whatever their existance is, and maybe one dies of starvation. That's a third-order effect. All of which count in the Lancet total because that simply compares an estimate of 'rate of death' before the war with an estimate of 'rate of death' after the war, with no regard as to cause.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    SpAcEd OuT wrote: »
    I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

    America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

    America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

    America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

    Ask the people of Iraq or the countless other countrys America has bullied/invaded/bombed/put crippling sanctions on how good its superiority benefits the world.


  • Options
    #113
    gordon_gekko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭gordon_gekko


    america is an imperial power , of course empires dont use words like that to describe themselves any more , the only difference between the imperial power of the usa and the imperial power of britain a century ago is the imperial power of the usa has been good for ireland where as the imperial power of the uk was bad for us

    that said , i still perfer american imperilism to that of islamic fundamentalism


  • Options
    #114
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Death not caused as a direct result of violence (i.e. person shot, blown up, knifed, that sort of thing) but which arguably only happened because of it. For example, let's say a power line gets blown up. The local pumping station loses power, and can no longer supply clean water. Locals adapt by drinking unfiltered water from an irrigation canal. Dad comes ill and dies of whatever disease. That's a second-order effect. Then the kids, not having a dad to care for them any more, end up trying to eke out whatever their existance is, and maybe one dies of starvation. That's a third-order effect. All of which count in the Lancet total because that simply compares an estimate of 'rate of death' before the war with an estimate of 'rate of death' after the war, with no regard as to cause.

    NTM

    ...and you truly believe that certain organisations including these casualties is overstating the truth?

    You seem to have some good insights into the military world, and a good grasp of history, but I wonder about your moral compass.


  • Options
    #115
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    KERPAL wrote: »
    Emmmmmm, sorry, im lost?

    I know, that can happen in the big adults' room.

    We're here to help, if you let us.

    BTW, I got a warning for calling you what you are. How ridiculous is that!


  • Options
    #116
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    ...and you truly believe that certain organisations including these casualties is overstating the truth?

    You seem to have some good insights into the military world, and a good grasp of history, but I wonder about your moral compass.

    I think one has to be very careful about attributing causes to attempts to measure knock-on effects. The whole thing about the 'all-encompassing' outlook is that completely unreleated factors could also be a contributor. For example, let's say that the rainy seasons in Iraq for three of the last five years were particularly brisk and humid, perfect for mosquito weather, and there was a malaria outbreak. Or pick whatever periodic epidemic or event you like which results in an unusual blip deaths. An earthquake, maybe. An oil tanker spill which kills off fish by a coastal town. The Lancet study does not even attempt to mitigate such things, simply hoping that everything just averages out between the five years prior and the five years after.

    On a less random level, Iraq's power grid was teetering on the brink of collapse prior to 2003. I'm not talking raw wattage numbers here, I'm talking about generators being held together by JB-weld and duct tape to provide that wattage. The grid couldn't keep up with spike in post-war demand, and combined with deficient equipment which eventually broke down, simply collapsed. There would be obvious resultant problems, anything from power to hospitals through sanitation systems. All of which can add to the tallies collected by Lancet, but which either have absolutely nothing to do with the invasion (Equipment not rebuilt since 1991 and was going to break down anyway) or are a positive side effect (Increase in demand due to greater availability of goods available).

    You get the idea. It's an interesting number, but the further away you get from 'direct cause', the more careful you need to be about the conclusions you draw from it.

    NTM


Advertisement