Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Bachmann: "Mr. Obama, you need to bomb Iran"

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I probably would do that, lol.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 4:22:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:00:21 AM, 18Karl wrote:
http://www.presstv.ir...

I'm scared of her.

The nuttiest people in America are usually in the lower house(I.E House of Rep) where the districts are smaller. She is one of the many nuts in Congress.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 9:35:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I probably would do that, lol.

but why? I don't think Merica has enough money to do so?
praise the lord Chin Chin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 10:41:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 9:35:38 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I probably would do that, lol.

but why? I don't think Merica has enough money to do so?

Yes. However, under the assumption that Iran will become a nuclear state, Saudi Arabia would soon follow, leading to a Middle East cold war. This would cause tensions in the region, and affect the global oil market (even if the US was energy 'independent') and lead to an increase in gas prices, significantly. Israel would also likely be another factor, causing even more unrest. The effect on the global economy would be massive. Less income = less taxable income, which = less revenue, and higher deficits. Further, Pakistan and India, two other nuclear powers, could become entangled in any issue in the region.

All in all, the costs of allowing a nuclear Iran would outweigh any prevention measures enacted military (except maybe a full invasion, something I would oppose).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:29:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 10:41:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 9:35:38 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I probably would do that, lol.

but why? I don't think Merica has enough money to do so?

Yes. However, under the assumption that Iran will become a nuclear state, Saudi Arabia would soon follow, leading to a Middle East cold war. This would cause tensions in the region, and affect the global oil market (even if the US was energy 'independent') and lead to an increase in gas prices, significantly. Israel would also likely be another factor, causing even more unrest. The effect on the global economy would be massive. Less income = less taxable income, which = less revenue, and higher deficits. Further, Pakistan and India, two other nuclear powers, could become entangled in any issue in the region.

All in all, the costs of allowing a nuclear Iran would outweigh any prevention measures enacted military (except maybe a full invasion, something I would oppose).

Interesting how you believe that to be true for Iran but not North Korea who has been proven to sell nuclear technology. Why the difference?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:51:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:29:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:41:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 9:35:38 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I probably would do that, lol.

but why? I don't think Merica has enough money to do so?

Yes. However, under the assumption that Iran will become a nuclear state, Saudi Arabia would soon follow, leading to a Middle East cold war. This would cause tensions in the region, and affect the global oil market (even if the US was energy 'independent') and lead to an increase in gas prices, significantly. Israel would also likely be another factor, causing even more unrest. The effect on the global economy would be massive. Less income = less taxable income, which = less revenue, and higher deficits. Further, Pakistan and India, two other nuclear powers, could become entangled in any issue in the region.

All in all, the costs of allowing a nuclear Iran would outweigh any prevention measures enacted military (except maybe a full invasion, something I would oppose).

Interesting how you believe that to be true for Iran but not North Korea who has been proven to sell nuclear technology. Why the difference?

Well North Korea already has nuclear weapons. The 5.0 earthquake the had this year was likely a nuclear test, not an earthquake.

It is much harder to remove nuclear weapons where they are present, due to the fact that they may use them in order to preserve them. Further, NK artillery is in range of Seol. So assuming the US did strike them, chances are they would retaliate against the South. This would lead to a tremendous loss of life and guarantee US involvement. Net cost would likely be negative.

And it is possible a strike on Iran could lead to a net-loss of money. But the fact is, preventing another unstable country from accessing nuclear weapons would have a net-benefit to humanity (and likely the economy, but that's debatable).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:52:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:51:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:29:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:41:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 9:35:38 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 12/14/2014 10:42:29 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I probably would do that, lol.

but why? I don't think Merica has enough money to do so?

Yes. However, under the assumption that Iran will become a nuclear state, Saudi Arabia would soon follow, leading to a Middle East cold war. This would cause tensions in the region, and affect the global oil market (even if the US was energy 'independent') and lead to an increase in gas prices, significantly. Israel would also likely be another factor, causing even more unrest. The effect on the global economy would be massive. Less income = less taxable income, which = less revenue, and higher deficits. Further, Pakistan and India, two other nuclear powers, could become entangled in any issue in the region.

All in all, the costs of allowing a nuclear Iran would outweigh any prevention measures enacted military (except maybe a full invasion, something I would oppose).

Interesting how you believe that to be true for Iran but not North Korea who has been proven to sell nuclear technology. Why the difference?

Well North Korea already has nuclear weapons. The 5.0 earthquake the had this year was likely a nuclear test, not an earthquake.

It is much harder to remove nuclear weapons where they are present, due to the fact that they may use them in order to preserve them. Further, NK artillery is in range of Seol. So assuming the US did strike them, chances are they would retaliate against the South. This would lead to a tremendous loss of life and guarantee US involvement. Net cost would likely be negative.

And it is possible a strike on Iran could lead to a net-loss of money. But the fact is, preventing another unstable country from accessing nuclear weapons would have a net-benefit to humanity (and likely the economy, but that's debatable).

Ok, but before NK got nukes. Would your opinion have been this?

All in all, the costs of allowing a nuclear North Korea would outweigh any prevention measures enacted military (except maybe a full invasion, something I would oppose).
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why...why at the Christmas party?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.

The world looks to America? Iran is not a rational state while America is? America is not likely to misuse it nuclear weapons (when they are the only country to have used it)?

I think the problem is that many Americans think this but no one else in the world does. Instead, foreign countries view America as a selfish bully who does whatever it wants under the guise of altruism.

Another glaring problem as self-declared world policeman, we have assumed the responsibility of being prosecutor, judge, and jury as well. So, when the matter is not important to us, we turn a blind eye. When we err, we sweep it under the rug. Whoever is going to police the policeman?

Let's use your example of cop and criminal and see for what it really is. I'm a rich landowner next to you. I declare myself a cop and come into your land, telling you what to do. I take away your guns because you're not responsible enough to have one and tell you that you're most likely a criminal. Would that not piss you off?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:26:17 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.

The world looks to America? Iran is not a rational state while America is? America is not likely to misuse it nuclear weapons (when they are the only country to have used it)?

I think the problem is that many Americans think this but no one else in the world does. Instead, foreign countries view America as a selfish bully who does whatever it wants under the guise of altruism.

No one in the world outside the Middle East believes Iran is a rational, stable state that can safely have nuclear weapons. Nor does anyone in the world (except maybe North Korea) believe America will misuse its nuclear weapons. The Cold War proved that. That some countries see America as selfish or arrogant doesn't mean they see it as unstable or dangerous.

Another glaring problem as self-declared world policeman, we have assumed the responsibility of being prosecutor, judge, and jury as well. So, when the matter is not important to us, we turn a blind eye. When we err, we sweep it under the rug. Whoever is going to police the policeman?

I agree with you. That's why I said, 'for better or worse."

Let's use your example of cop and criminal and see for what it really is. I'm a rich landowner next to you. I declare myself a cop and come into your land, telling you what to do. I take away your guns because you're not responsible enough to have one and tell you that you're most likely a criminal. Would that not piss you off?

This would only work if Iran was a stable neighbor minding his own business. That is not Iran.
(And America didn't really declare itself the cop. The world basically appointed it. America just refused to leave after that).
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:26:17 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.

The world looks to America? Iran is not a rational state while America is? America is not likely to misuse it nuclear weapons (when they are the only country to have used it)?

I think the problem is that many Americans think this but no one else in the world does. Instead, foreign countries view America as a selfish bully who does whatever it wants under the guise of altruism.

Another glaring problem as self-declared world policeman, we have assumed the responsibility of being prosecutor, judge, and jury as well. So, when the matter is not important to us, we turn a blind eye. When we err, we sweep it under the rug. Whoever is going to police the policeman?

Let's use your example of cop and criminal and see for what it really is. I'm a rich landowner next to you. I declare myself a cop and come into your land, telling you what to do. I take away your guns because you're not responsible enough to have one and tell you that you're most likely a criminal. Would that not piss you off?

The United states used nuclear weapons in the middle of a WORLD WAR, in order to end the madness as swiftly as possible. Iran is likely to use them in an era of relative peace. Had we not used them, more lives would have been lost. Proof? Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb. Millions of lives-both u.s and Japanese, were at stake.

Using a newly found weapon to end the greatest war humanity has ever experienced is simply not the same as trying to build such a weapon during peace time.

Plus, we have always seeked international regulation, and every country agreed- except the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. What we're seeing now is the aftermath of that decision.

One last point I want to make is that the actions of a U.S. president decides ago has no bearing on the intentions of the U.S. government now. That's the beauty of a constitutional republic. To criticize an entire country as if they are one individual is as unfounded as criticizing an entire race for the actions of their extremist factions.

Seriously. Any superpower is going to make tough decisions. Who would you rather lead?
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:59:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:50:15 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

The United states used nuclear weapons in the middle of a WORLD WAR, in order to end the madness as swiftly as possible. Iran is likely to use them in an era of relative peace. Had we not used them, more lives would have been lost. Proof? Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb. Millions of lives-both u.s and Japanese, were at stake.

Using a newly found weapon to end the greatest war humanity has ever experienced is simply not the same as trying to build such a weapon during peace time.


You're focusing on just one incident. Whether the bomb was justified or not, look at numerous other incidents that the US does whatever it wants. Look up the Al Shifa factory. We made a terrible mistake and when the UN wanted to do its own investigation, the US conveniently vetoed it. Case closed.

Plus, we have always seeked international regulation, and every country agreed- except the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. What we're seeing now is the aftermath of that decision.


I don't know what to say to this. Did you make this up? I hate to be condescending but do you even read the newspaper? Have you even taken US modern history? What you said isn't remotely true and is actually the complete opposite. I mean countless times, the US has gone against world vote and does whatever it wants. It's literally the entire world except for US and one or two other countries on many issues. Get your head out of your butt because the US has a history of doing whatever it wants.

One last point I want to make is that the actions of a U.S. president decides ago has no bearing on the intentions of the U.S. government now. That's the beauty of a constitutional republic. To criticize an entire country as if they are one individual is as unfounded as criticizing an entire race for the actions of their extremist factions.


Uh..what you said above doesn't make sense. When you assess US's record on the world stage, of course you need to consider both the acts of one US president decades ago as well as the acts of the government now. You need to consider everything when assessing how evil or good a country is.

But, the fact that the US consists of not one individual but many actually illustrates my point. The US is not a single individual but consist of several people in leadership positions. Not only are most of these individuals selfish, but also some of them are downright evil. As a result, the US rarely act of a sense of altruism but rather a mishmash of conflicting self-interest. Altruism is usually the false justification.

Seriously. Any superpower is going to make tough decisions. Who would you rather lead?

Didn't understand your sentence but I think you meant to say instead of the US, what other country should be leading? Easy. First, US should stay out. Its meddling has caused more deaths than saved. (Another topic of discussion.) Second, if a policeman is required, it should be an empowered UN in which no nation has total control. But, that's impossible because the US refuses to abdicate power to it. Apparently, the US loves to wield its veto power when the entire world tells us not to do something and we say f off.

Do I fault young and old Americans for blindly believing in US exceptionalism? Not really. For example, you're a young kid raised by your father for ten years. Who wants to believe that their own father is an evil sociopath that raped and pillaged to provide the clothes and food that you have? But, some take a journey in which they learn that their country isn't so innocent. They see the good and the bad.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:37:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:26:17 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.

The world looks to America? Iran is not a rational state while America is? America is not likely to misuse it nuclear weapons (when they are the only country to have used it)?

I think the problem is that many Americans think this but no one else in the world does. Instead, foreign countries view America as a selfish bully who does whatever it wants under the guise of altruism.

No one in the world outside the Middle East believes Iran is a rational, stable state that can safely have nuclear weapons. Nor does anyone in the world (except maybe North Korea) believe America will misuse its nuclear weapons. The Cold War proved that. That some countries see America as selfish or arrogant doesn't mean they see it as unstable or dangerous.

Give me proof of this. Did you make this up because it's not based on fact. Do you know that the whole world has repeatedly told the US to dismantle their chemical and nuclear weapons? I mean even North Korea has agreed to dismantle their own if the US does as well but the US refuses. It's literally all the countries in the world and the US refuses. And, the US can do this due to its veto power. Even when the US has agreed to dismantle something, it delays and delays. Did you know for example, that Clinton enacted a law that forbade surprised inspections? So, you have these other countries that must rid itself of weapons and must allow surprised inspections but the US does hold itself to the same standard?


Another glaring problem as self-declared world policeman, we have assumed the responsibility of being prosecutor, judge, and jury as well. So, when the matter is not important to us, we turn a blind eye. When we err, we sweep it under the rug. Whoever is going to police the policeman?

I agree with you. That's why I said, 'for better or worse."

Let's use your example of cop and criminal and see for what it really is. I'm a rich landowner next to you. I declare myself a cop and come into your land, telling you what to do. I take away your guns because you're not responsible enough to have one and tell you that you're most likely a criminal. Would that not piss you off?

This would only work if Iran was a stable neighbor minding his own business. That is not Iran.
(And America didn't really declare itself the cop. The world basically appointed it. America just refused to leave after that).

The world basically appointed it? Where the hll did you get this? It's patently false. The world actually was telling us to stay out but we butted in because of our unusual need to protect Israel.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:53:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:59:00 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:50:15 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

The United states used nuclear weapons in the middle of a WORLD WAR, in order to end the madness as swiftly as possible. Iran is likely to use them in an era of relative peace. Had we not used them, more lives would have been lost. Proof? Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb. Millions of lives-both u.s and Japanese, were at stake.

Using a newly found weapon to end the greatest war humanity has ever experienced is simply not the same as trying to build such a weapon during peace time.


You're focusing on just one incident. Whether the bomb was justified or not, look at numerous other incidents that the US does whatever it wants. Look up the Al Shifa factory. We made a terrible mistake and when the UN wanted to do its own investigation, the US conveniently vetoed it. Case closed.

Plus, we have always seeked international regulation, and every country agreed- except the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. What we're seeing now is the aftermath of that decision.


I don't know what to say to this. Did you make this up? I hate to be condescending but do you even read the newspaper? Have you even taken US modern history? What you said isn't remotely true and is actually the complete opposite. I mean countless times, the US has gone against world vote and does whatever it wants. It's literally the entire world except for US and one or two other countries on many issues. Get your head out of your butt because the US has a history of doing whatever it wants.

One last point I want to make is that the actions of a U.S. president decides ago has no bearing on the intentions of the U.S. government now. That's the beauty of a constitutional republic. To criticize an entire country as if they are one individual is as unfounded as criticizing an entire race for the actions of their extremist factions.


Uh..what you said above doesn't make sense. When you assess US's record on the world stage, of course you need to consider both the acts of one US president decades ago as well as the acts of the government now. You need to consider everything when assessing how evil or good a country is.

But, the fact that the US consists of not one individual but many actually illustrates my point. The US is not a single individual but consist of several people in leadership positions. Not only are most of these individuals selfish, but also some of them are downright evil. As a result, the US rarely act of a sense of altruism but rather a mishmash of conflicting self-interest. Altruism is usually the false justification.

Seriously. Any superpower is going to make tough decisions. Who would you rather lead?

Didn't understand your sentence but I think you meant to say instead of the US, what other country should be leading? Easy. First, US should stay out. Its meddling has caused more deaths than saved. (Another topic of discussion.) Second, if a policeman is required, it should be an empowered UN in which no nation has total control. But, that's impossible because the US refuses to abdicate power to it. Apparently, the US loves to wield its veto power when the entire world tells us not to do something and we say f off.

Do I fault young and old Americans for blindly believing in US exceptionalism? Not really. For example, you're a young kid raised by your father for ten years. Who wants to believe that their own father is an evil sociopath that raped and pillaged to provide the clothes and food that you have? But, some take a journey in which they learn that their country isn't so innocent. They see the good and the bad.

I acknowledge the good and the bad, however, I am arguing against a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S, and because of this, I'm going to look like I support them. If you'll look at other forums, I am more than willing to acknowledge things like police racism, outdated mindsets, and the hypocrisy of supporting revolutions only when they are at the safe distance of decades behind us. That being said, I don't entirely agree with your opinion.

Here's the essential problem with the U.N multipolarity: It won't work. Even the European Union can barely hold itself together. There are simply too many historic animosities, geopolitical rivalries, and uneducated hatred to actually hold a world government together.

I actually do agree with you on the foreign involvement point-to an extent. However, I think it's very pertinent to point out that a lot of the Coup organizing, bombing, foreign entanglements, etc. are done without massive public knowledge.

So when you say that the United States is evil as a country , or even as a public government, I'm going to disagree, because it gives the citizens a bad rap.

However, the shadow government (for lack of a better phrase), which most likely includes corporations with ties to the military-industrial complex, has a very different agenda. Even the Executive Branch of the public government routinely circumvents Congresses approval on everything from drone strikes to trade agreements.

I don't defend everything the U.S does, or think it's a force for good. I simply believe that for the most of the population, their heart is in the right place.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:22:47 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:37:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:26:17 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:25:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:59:16 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:52:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 6:47:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:43:03 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:14:59 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I'm confused.

Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but all of these countries may not?

Why does the US apply so much pressure to Iran but does not do the same for Israel which is also very aggressive and has nuclear weapons?

Israel won't use its nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. Nor will the US. Something Iran has openly stated it will do.

Please provide proof that Iran has openly stated they would use nuclear weapons on their enemies should they get them. Until solid proof is provided one would have to conclude that is an erroneous statement.

Correction. Iranian leadership has said "Israel should be wiped from the map." They did not specifically say nuke.

US leadership has also said that Iran should be wiped from the map. Does that mean US should also give up all their nukes?

It's hypocritical to tell another nation to give up nukes when we have them. I can't understand why more Americans are not ashamed of this hypocrisy.

No, it's really not. America is the world superpower. For better or worse, the world looks to America. Iran is not a stable, free, rational, safe state. America is. America is not likely to misuse its nuclear weapons. Iran is. What you're saying is akin to telling cops that it's hypocritical for them to ask criminals to surrender their weapons when the cops themselves have weapons.

The world looks to America? Iran is not a rational state while America is? America is not likely to misuse it nuclear weapons (when they are the only country to have used it)?

I think the problem is that many Americans think this but no one else in the world does. Instead, foreign countries view America as a selfish bully who does whatever it wants under the guise of altruism.

No one in the world outside the Middle East believes Iran is a rational, stable state that can safely have nuclear weapons. Nor does anyone in the world (except maybe North Korea) believe America will misuse its nuclear weapons. The Cold War proved that. That some countries see America as selfish or arrogant doesn't mean they see it as unstable or dangerous.

Give me proof of this. Did you make this up because it's not based on fact. Do you know that the whole world has repeatedly told the US to dismantle their chemical and nuclear weapons? I mean even North Korea has agreed to dismantle their own if the US does as well but the US refuses. It's literally all the countries in the world and the US refuses. And, the US can do this due to its veto power. Even when the US has agreed to dismantle something, it delays and delays. Did you know for example, that Clinton enacted a law that forbade surprised inspections? So, you have these other countries that must rid itself of weapons and must allow surprised inspections but the US does hold itself to the same standard?

I'm not going to respond to the whole post, but I do have to point out that North Korea, after starving millions of its citizens to the point of cannibalism, declared the U.S a "graveyard" of human rights. Any statement from North Korea is merely propaganda aimed to destroy the reputation of South Korea's strongest ally.


Another glaring problem as self-declared world policeman, we have assumed the responsibility of being prosecutor, judge, and jury as well. So, when the matter is not important to us, we turn a blind eye. When we err, we sweep it under the rug. Whoever is going to police the policeman?

I agree with you. That's why I said, 'for better or worse."

Let's use your example of cop and criminal and see for what it really is. I'm a rich landowner next to you. I declare myself a cop and come into your land, telling you what to do. I take away your guns because you're not responsible enough to have one and tell you that you're most likely a criminal. Would that not piss you off?

This would only work if Iran was a stable neighbor minding his own business. That is not Iran.
(And America didn't really declare itself the cop. The world basically appointed it. America just refused to leave after that).

The world basically appointed it? Where the hll did you get this? It's patently false. The world actually was telling us to stay out but we butted in because of our unusual need to protect Israel.

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:50:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:22:47 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
Do you know that the whole world has repeatedly told the US to dismantle their chemical and nuclear weapons? I mean even North Korea has agreed to dismantle their own if the US does as well but the US refuses. It's literally all the countries in the world and the US refuses. And, the US can do this due to its veto power. Even when the US has agreed to dismantle something, it delays and delays. Did you know for example, that Clinton enacted a law that forbade surprised inspections? So, you have these other countries that must rid itself of weapons and must allow surprised inspections but the US does hold itself to the same standard?

Portions of what you've stated in this thread simply aren't true. The US is not the only nation which has opposed dismantling entirely their nuclear arsenal. In reality, the US has been and remains a proponent of nuclear abolition. The first link will substantiate this point. Furthermore, nuclear weapons provide a successful deterrent, which is their purpose in the United States Military. There is a difference between a nation which uses its power to propagate peace, and a nation which uses it's power to catalyze a nuclear war. The second link provides evidence for this point.

The world basically appointed it? Where the hll did you get this? It's patently false. The world actually was telling us to stay out but we butted in because of our unusual need to protect Israel.

Its fairly ignorant to conglomerate all 190+ nations into one entity, 'the world,' and generalize as a single unit. Certain countries have favorable opinions of the US, others don't. Virtually all of them change their opinions contingent with international concerns.

Many nations, for a variety of reasons, have appointed the US, or acknowledged it, as the sole hegemon. With this title, they grant the US that responsibility. The US protects dozens of nations, at their own request. Neither Germany nor Japan have militaries, as the US stations troops in both locations. Canada, the UK, and Australia have significantly downsized their militaries in response to the US's agreement to defend these nations. The US Navy protects dozens of global shipping routes across the world, and for years the US protected the global currency. I think its reasonable to assume the United States has been appointed, or at the very least accepted, as the global police.

Didn't understand your sentence but I think you meant to say instead of the US, what other country should be leading? Easy. First, US should stay out. Its meddling has caused more deaths than saved. (Another topic of discussion.) Second, if a policeman is required, it should be an empowered UN in which no nation has total control. But, that's impossible because the US refuses to abdicate power to it. Apparently, the US loves to wield its veto power when the entire world tells us not to do something and we say f off.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim? Arguably, American capitalism has raised hundreds of millions of global citizens out of poverty (look at China and India) as well as the US's reconstruction of many nations for the better (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan). I'm wondering where you derived the opinion that the US has repeatedly murdered foreign citizens in droves, as I see excruciatingly little evidence to suggest this.

UN politics are more complicated than "the US is greedy and that's why it doesn't work." I challenge you to find a nation which would surrender its sovereignty to the UN - I can't name a single one. I agree that a strong international institution is what's needed, but until that's a reality, the US has done a fine job stepping up to the plate.

1. http://www.icanw.org...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:53:35 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I acknowledge the good and the bad, however, I am arguing against a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S, and because of this, I'm going to look like I support them. If you'll look at other forums, I am more than willing to acknowledge things like police racism, outdated mindsets, and the hypocrisy of supporting revolutions only when they are at the safe distance of decades behind us. That being said, I don't entirely agree with your opinion.

Here's the essential problem with the U.N multipolarity: It won't work. Even the European Union can barely hold itself together. There are simply too many historic animosities, geopolitical rivalries, and uneducated hatred to actually hold a world government together.

I actually do agree with you on the foreign involvement point-to an extent. However, I think it's very pertinent to point out that a lot of the Coup organizing, bombing, foreign entanglements, etc. are done without massive public knowledge.

So when you say that the United States is evil as a country , or even as a public government, I'm going to disagree, because it gives the citizens a bad rap.

However, the shadow government (for lack of a better phrase), which most likely includes corporations with ties to the military-industrial complex, has a very different agenda. Even the Executive Branch of the public government routinely circumvents Congresses approval on everything from drone strikes to trade agreements.

I don't defend everything the U.S does, or think it's a force for good. I simply believe that for the most of the population, their heart is in the right place.

With respect to the UN, we have a very different view. When I look at the UN, I look at our own history and see remarkable similarities. Contrary to what many Americans think, the Federal government was actually very weak relative to the states. It have very little power and could do very little. It barely had power to muster up an army. The states initially refused to give up any powers at all. That's why the whole state vs federal gov is such a huge deal in our constitution. It took hundreds of years and a civil war before the federal government is as strong as it is today. look it up. Like the EU, each state was it's own mini country and no state wanted to give up any rights.

And, now realize that our initial federal government had more power than the UN or European Union has now with respect to its members. That's why the UN and EU will never work. The members are too selfish and won't give up control. You know who has the power to change this? The US. They have THE most amount to lose but that's why precisely it will work. Everyone will give up their rights if the US does. If the US agrees to get taxed and be binded by the decisions of the UN, EVERYONE will jump on board the UN train. It'll be too good to pass up.

For example, look at the Kyoto protocol. I see it as a prime example of how selfish we are. We make up 33% of the entire world's pollution but only 5% of the world's population. Almost every country in the world agreed to cut emissions but the US was the sole major holdout. Our leaders refused to cut our emissions because it would hurt our economy the most. Of course, it would but how is it fair we are contributing so much pollution to the world. How selfish can this be??!

But, then look at our outrage at China and their lax protection of intellectual property, namely movies. We hem and haw that it's completely unfair. Well, to China, they simply don't care because how would it benefit them if they protected US IP property? Don't you think our stance is hypocritical?

You do have a point that the average citizen is different than the leaders who make the actual decisions. The populations as a whole is more altruistic than I make it out to be. At the same time, I don't think we are angels. American success was founded upon people lying, cheating, and stealing amongst each other. It was more the norm rather than abnormal. For example, a 100 years ago, you had to be very careful who you were dealing with. People have this belief that the US was founded upon a smile, apple pie and a handshake.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:08:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.

You're wrong that the US has the capability to take all of Western Europe. That's another false belief in American exceptionalism. We have a military that is larger than all the militaries in the world put together but you should realize that with all of this military and tech, we wouldn't be able to occupy and stabilize a single country. Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at our record in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, look at USSR's failed occupation of Afghanistan (one of THE poorest countries in the world) for ten years. Like many Americans, we are so proud of our military and completely overestimate its ability.

You also said that the US is simply using its great power for its own self interest and why is that a crime? I can't believe you just said that. I mean Hitler could have said the same thing.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:16:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:08:53 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.

You're wrong that the US has the capability to take all of Western Europe. That's another false belief in American exceptionalism. We have a military that is larger than all the militaries in the world put together but you should realize that with all of this military and tech, we wouldn't be able to occupy and stabilize a single country. Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at our record in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, look at USSR's failed occupation of Afghanistan (one of THE poorest countries in the world) for ten years. Like many Americans, we are so proud of our military and completely overestimate its ability.

You also said that the US is simply using its great power for its own self interest and why is that a crime? I can't believe you just said that. I mean Hitler could have said the same thing.

Hitler did things with no regard for altruism. Self interest was his ONLY end, as opposed to one of them. Plus, he committed murder for the sake of hatred rather than self interest.

Furthermore, my point is that selfish motives aren't enough to condemn someone. Hitler did not make tough decisions. He simply decided to commit genocide, and openly subjugate other countries to his will based on a racial superiority complex.

None of these things are an essential part of self interest. He merely did it because he could.

Are you beginning to see your metaphor fall apart?
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:30:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:16:35 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:08:53 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.

You're wrong that the US has the capability to take all of Western Europe. That's another false belief in American exceptionalism. We have a military that is larger than all the militaries in the world put together but you should realize that with all of this military and tech, we wouldn't be able to occupy and stabilize a single country. Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at our record in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, look at USSR's failed occupation of Afghanistan (one of THE poorest countries in the world) for ten years. Like many Americans, we are so proud of our military and completely overestimate its ability.

You also said that the US is simply using its great power for its own self interest and why is that a crime? I can't believe you just said that. I mean Hitler could have said the same thing.

Hitler did things with no regard for altruism. Self interest was his ONLY end, as opposed to one of them. Plus, he committed murder for the sake of hatred rather than self interest.

Furthermore, my point is that selfish motives aren't enough to condemn someone. Hitler did not make tough decisions. He simply decided to commit genocide, and openly subjugate other countries to his will based on a racial superiority complex.

None of these things are an essential part of self interest. He merely did it because he could.

Are you beginning to see your metaphor fall apart?

That's a very simplistic view on why Hitler did what he did. People don't just commit genocide. Hitler acted because he was trying to gain political power. And, a way to do that is to foment the anger towards Jews at the time who was viewed as one of the main reasons for the defeat of the Germans in World War I.

To say that he did it because he could. Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean it's not in any of the history books. Did you just make it up?
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:47:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:50:44 PM, Praesentya wrote:

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim? Arguably, American capitalism has raised hundreds of millions of global citizens out of poverty (look at China and India) as well as the US's reconstruction of many nations for the better (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan). I'm wondering where you derived the opinion that the US has repeatedly murdered foreign citizens in droves, as I see excruciatingly little evidence to suggest this.

UN politics are more complicated than "the US is greedy and that's why it doesn't work." I challenge you to find a nation which would surrender its sovereignty to the UN - I can't name a single one. I agree that a strong international institution is what's needed, but until that's a reality, the US has done a fine job stepping up to the plate.

1. http://www.icanw.org...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

1. Do I have any evidence to substantiate my claim? Well, this is a huge discussion topic on its own. But, here is some quick evidence. Look at Vietnam, USSR, Cuba, and China. They came out of communism on their own. On their own, they learned that communism didn't work and free markets are the way to go. The fact that we invaded these countries and caused tens of millions of deaths could have been avoided if we just stayed away. Our meddling actually caused more deaths than saved. It's not a clear cut answer but I strongly believe this.

2. Arguably, American capitalism has raised 100s of millions out of poverty? I can't believe you said this. Did you just make this up? I mean it really shows your bias and jingoism. To say that America had something to do with capitalism in china is laughable. Does the US have some monopoly on free markets? Did we invent it or something? I'm sorry but free markets existed long before the US. And, China and India came out of poverty on their own. Actually, our interference hampered efforts instead of encouraging it.

3. US reconstruction efforts? Just google and see the efficacy of our investment. It's been a mixed bag.

4. US murdered foreign citizens? You see little evidence of this? I'm sorry but you're seeing history with a specific set of colored lens. You've been raised to view America as this force for good but put yourself in the position of other countries. Everything the US does is for some selfish reason which causes trouble.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:30:30 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:16:35 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:08:53 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.

You're wrong that the US has the capability to take all of Western Europe. That's another false belief in American exceptionalism. We have a military that is larger than all the militaries in the world put together but you should realize that with all of this military and tech, we wouldn't be able to occupy and stabilize a single country. Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at our record in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, look at USSR's failed occupation of Afghanistan (one of THE poorest countries in the world) for ten years. Like many Americans, we are so proud of our military and completely overestimate its ability.

You also said that the US is simply using its great power for its own self interest and why is that a crime? I can't believe you just said that. I mean Hitler could have said the same thing.

Hitler did things with no regard for altruism. Self interest was his ONLY end, as opposed to one of them. Plus, he committed murder for the sake of hatred rather than self interest.

Furthermore, my point is that selfish motives aren't enough to condemn someone. Hitler did not make tough decisions. He simply decided to commit genocide, and openly subjugate other countries to his will based on a racial superiority complex.

None of these things are an essential part of self interest. He merely did it because he could.

Are you beginning to see your metaphor fall apart?

That's a very simplistic view on why Hitler did what he did. People don't just commit genocide. Hitler acted because he was trying to gain political power. And, a way to do that is to foment the anger towards Jews at the time who was viewed as one of the main reasons for the defeat of the Germans in World War I.

To say that he did it because he could. Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean it's not in any of the history books. Did you just make it up?

Take a read of Min Kamf, straight from the horses mouth.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:08:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:52:20 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:30:30 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:16:35 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:08:53 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:02:44 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:

I think what he means is that all over the world, countries appealed to the U.S for military protection that no other country was able and willing to offer. Like Greece, for example. After the common enemy of the Soviet Union was destroyed, the argument can be seriously made that the U.S world policing has outlived its purpose. However, it cannot be ignored that the U.S has the capability to take all of Western Europe, or literally implement a Scorched Earth policy on its enemies, and it doesn't. It's merely using its power to guide things in a way that will simultaneously support its self interest, and if that's some great crime, then we should just throw the social contract out the window right now.

You're wrong that the US has the capability to take all of Western Europe. That's another false belief in American exceptionalism. We have a military that is larger than all the militaries in the world put together but you should realize that with all of this military and tech, we wouldn't be able to occupy and stabilize a single country. Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at our record in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, look at USSR's failed occupation of Afghanistan (one of THE poorest countries in the world) for ten years. Like many Americans, we are so proud of our military and completely overestimate its ability.

You also said that the US is simply using its great power for its own self interest and why is that a crime? I can't believe you just said that. I mean Hitler could have said the same thing.

Hitler did things with no regard for altruism. Self interest was his ONLY end, as opposed to one of them. Plus, he committed murder for the sake of hatred rather than self interest.

Furthermore, my point is that selfish motives aren't enough to condemn someone. Hitler did not make tough decisions. He simply decided to commit genocide, and openly subjugate other countries to his will based on a racial superiority complex.

None of these things are an essential part of self interest. He merely did it because he could.

Are you beginning to see your metaphor fall apart?

That's a very simplistic view on why Hitler did what he did. People don't just commit genocide. Hitler acted because he was trying to gain political power. And, a way to do that is to foment the anger towards Jews at the time who was viewed as one of the main reasons for the defeat of the Germans in World War I.

To say that he did it because he could. Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean it's not in any of the history books. Did you just make it up?

Take a read of Min Kamf, straight from the horses mouth.

Uh...Mein Kampf was a book published for Hitler's followers to read so it won't list the true reasons for Hitler's beliefs. Rather, it will say what Hitler wanted his followers to believe.

But, even in Mein Kampf, Hitler doesn't say he did it because he just wanted to commit genocide. He goes into detail why he thought communism and judaism were the 2 great world evils. But, read any historian's account of the causes of the Holocaust.

But, this is a digression. You said it's ok if countries, utilizing their great power, act out of self-interest. Uh...in our society, that's the definition of evil. At best, it's a bully. At worst, it's Hitler.