Should the US goverment involve itself in Liberia?
- Thread starter djk
- Start date
No governmennt should send in it's army into another country. If so, its an act of aggression which should be condemned by the international community. (e.g. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).
If the States do go into a foreign country and claim to protect "rights, freedoms, liberties, etc. etc.", they are doing the same thing what the Nazis and Japanese have done. After all, the Nazis only claimed that everything Aryan was superior and that the Japanese only claimed that they were spreading their superior culture and to establish a Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere for the benefit of Asia.
Countries would say whatever it takes to make their invading/occupying army justified.
On the other hand, the States jumping on Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, that was a just act because it was Iraq that was at fault. So, the States did the right thing. They also did the right thing in both the World Wars.
If the States do go into a foreign country and claim to protect "rights, freedoms, liberties, etc. etc.", they are doing the same thing what the Nazis and Japanese have done. After all, the Nazis only claimed that everything Aryan was superior and that the Japanese only claimed that they were spreading their superior culture and to establish a Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere for the benefit of Asia.
Countries would say whatever it takes to make their invading/occupying army justified.
On the other hand, the States jumping on Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, that was a just act because it was Iraq that was at fault. So, the States did the right thing. They also did the right thing in both the World Wars.
Hey, watchout guys - you don't want to be told by E.B. that you don't know what you are talking about - as it appears that he is the resident genious on both US foreign policy, as well as anything that America is about.
...give me a break!
SubDave - I agree with your points - you need more than one country to not only make up the rules, but enforce them.
...give me a break!
SubDave - I agree with your points - you need more than one country to not only make up the rules, but enforce them.
Sorry SubDave - but the thing with Iraq isn't 100% true - Kuwait was a province of Iraq, but it was essentially unilaterally cleaved from Iraq at the end of WWII. So, although I don't agree with Iraq invading Kuwait - I also don't think Iraq was given a fair shake some 55 years ago at the hands of the British.
However, I do agree with you in regards to National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan.
However, I do agree with you in regards to National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan.
Thanks for the clarification on that one HowardHughes, I should of admit my ignorance on Iraqi/Kuwait/British relations before I said that.HowardHughes said:
But then, just to play a little devil's advocate, couldn't your line of reasoning also be true for a unified Korea (doesn't matter who invades who), China(Tibet, Taiwan and Mongolia), Pakistan and India and Bangledesh and so on and so fourth?
I guess many of these countries are divided up because of their past colonial history ...
What do I think? Well yeah ... a unified Korea would be nice, a unified China would be nice and a unified South Asia would be nice too ...
Well now..you see Howard, you should actually stick to ME politics. Apparently you're a little better read in that area. In fact, Iraq made overtures towards recapturing Kuwait in the mid 70's. In the 1920's the Brits took away alot of the port access from Iraq, by partiotioning off Kuwait. It has been a bone of contention for a long time. So Saddam was not just a crazy man for invading Kuwait, he actually had some historical precedent for the claim, although the war was conducted savagely.HowardHughes said:
EBS
Why unification is "nice".
Fichte: To The German Nation, 1806:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1806fichte.html
Fichte: To The German Nation, 1807:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1807fichte1.html
Johann Gottfried von Herder:
Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1784herder-mankind.html
Richard Price:
The Discourse on the Love of Country, 1789:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1789price-patriotism.html
Hope this will answer your inquiry on why it would be "nice" to have a unified country.shiftee said:
Fichte: To The German Nation, 1806:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1806fichte.html
Fichte: To The German Nation, 1807:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1807fichte1.html
Johann Gottfried von Herder:
Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1784herder-mankind.html
Richard Price:
The Discourse on the Love of Country, 1789:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1789price-patriotism.html
The situation in Liberia seems, sadly, a tragic one. But I'm not really sure why the US is the one that has to go in and straighten things out. Liberia strikes me as being a solid case for UN intervention.
<Liberia strikes me as being a solid case for UN intervention.>
The UN doesn't have an army. They need the backing of some of their member's armies.
The UN doesn't have an army. They need the backing of some of their member's armies.
The US is the UN ...
Sorry, I had to say that ... hehehe
Although no one wants it that way ... that's how it has turned out unfortunately ...
Sorry, I had to say that ... hehehe
Although no one wants it that way ... that's how it has turned out unfortunately ...
Nah, the US just knows that the UN is all bark and no bite.
Personally, I think it's a joke. Especially when you have Sudan, Libya, and Syria sitting on UN Human Rights Commission.
Cheers,
-djk
Personally, I think it's a joke. Especially when you have Sudan, Libya, and Syria sitting on UN Human Rights Commission.
Cheers,
-djk
Hey Mrpolarbear...
Don't get me started with the English - I'm Scottish!!!!
And I have a question for E.B....
If the US is such a great place - why was it commonplace there, and a 100 years after the civil war, that the black population still basically couldn't vote???
Don't get me started with the English - I'm Scottish!!!!
And I have a question for E.B....
If the US is such a great place - why was it commonplace there, and a 100 years after the civil war, that the black population still basically couldn't vote???
US
1935 -- The first black Democrat was elected to Congress.
1922 -- The Supreme Court upholds the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
1903 -- 15th Amendment is ratified, giving blacks the right to vote.
1869 -- The first blacks entered Congress as members of the Republican Party
1870 -- The 5th Amendment (which recognized black's right to vote) goes into effect.
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/History/history.html
http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/history.htm
Canada
1948 -- South Asians attain the right to vote in federal and provincial elections.
http://www.crr.ca/en/MediaCentre/FactSheets/eMedCen_FacShtLegalizedRacism.htm
1920 -- "The right to vote became universal in principle in 1920, but significant loopholes remained. Electoral law allowed the exclusion of Native people and people of Oriental origin. In particular, Canadian citizens of Japanese origin were at one time denied the right to vote, even when they had served in the Canadian army during the war. Various religious groups were also affected. Native people could vote since Confederation, but only if they gave up their treaty rights and registered Indian status. The last of these limitations were lifted in 1960, but not without much political debate."
http://www.civilization.ca/hist/elections/el_022_e.html
1935 -- The first black Democrat was elected to Congress.
1922 -- The Supreme Court upholds the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
1903 -- 15th Amendment is ratified, giving blacks the right to vote.
1869 -- The first blacks entered Congress as members of the Republican Party
1870 -- The 5th Amendment (which recognized black's right to vote) goes into effect.
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/History/history.html
http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/history.htm
Canada
1948 -- South Asians attain the right to vote in federal and provincial elections.
http://www.crr.ca/en/MediaCentre/FactSheets/eMedCen_FacShtLegalizedRacism.htm
1920 -- "The right to vote became universal in principle in 1920, but significant loopholes remained. Electoral law allowed the exclusion of Native people and people of Oriental origin. In particular, Canadian citizens of Japanese origin were at one time denied the right to vote, even when they had served in the Canadian army during the war. Various religious groups were also affected. Native people could vote since Confederation, but only if they gave up their treaty rights and registered Indian status. The last of these limitations were lifted in 1960, but not without much political debate."
http://www.civilization.ca/hist/elections/el_022_e.html
sigh...here we go again. The world is calling for the U.S. to intervene in Africa. The African nations are calling for the U.S. to intervene. I don't see anyone else helping. We can debate this shit all day. Is it wrong to stop a government who maims and slaughter millions of its own people? Millions...
To compare the U.S. intervening in Africa to Hitler's attempt at destroying Europe is ridiculous, and as usual a bore. *yawn*
As usual, we are called upon to help other nations when no one else can or will. Our soldiers will go there, and our soldiers will die. And when all is said and done you will still be talking shit about us.
I love TERB, but I never knew how hated we were by so many Canadians until I started posting here. So disheartening.
DW
To compare the U.S. intervening in Africa to Hitler's attempt at destroying Europe is ridiculous, and as usual a bore. *yawn*
As usual, we are called upon to help other nations when no one else can or will. Our soldiers will go there, and our soldiers will die. And when all is said and done you will still be talking shit about us.
I love TERB, but I never knew how hated we were by so many Canadians until I started posting here. So disheartening.
DW
