Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

American Intervention

Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 4:47:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.



I agree to some extent, but Prager University is very biased unfortunately. If you watch any of their videos, you can see all of them support a conservative stance of the issue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 4:56:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:47:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.

I agree to some extent, but Prager University is very biased unfortunately. If you watch any of their videos, you can see all of them support a conservative stance of the issue.

Genetic Fallacy.

Instead of actually examining the context, trying to discredit the source by attacking its origin is a faulty strategy.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:16:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:56:58 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 4:47:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.

I agree to some extent, but Prager University is very biased unfortunately. If you watch any of their videos, you can see all of them support a conservative stance of the issue.

Genetic Fallacy.

Instead of actually examining the context, trying to discredit the source by attacking its origin is a faulty strategy.

No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east? There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:56:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:56:58 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 4:47:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.

I agree to some extent, but Prager University is very biased unfortunately. If you watch any of their videos, you can see all of them support a conservative stance of the issue.

Genetic Fallacy.

Instead of actually examining the context, trying to discredit the source by attacking its origin is a faulty strategy.

Good work officer ;)
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Genetic Fallacy

source by attacking its origin is a faulty strategy.

Good work officer ;)

Lol, the FP strikes again xD

1 - me; 0 - you
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.

what about what happened in Sri Lanka then?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our aggressive foreign policy is the reason for a lot of these terrorists. If we were fair police it would be one thing, but we are not, we act in our own self interests and we let injustices happen if its in our interest to do so. Until this changes we should not try to police the world because everyone with an IQ over 80 can see what is going on and what we are doing is actually exasperating the situation.

Fear and silence is not the same thing as respect. If we want respect we need to be diplomatic.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:27:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:03:07 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.

what about what happened in Sri Lanka then?

I saw this which said the US had plans for military involvement but haven't heard anything besides that https://www.wsws.org...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:27:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:03:07 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.

what about what happened in Sri Lanka then?

I saw this which said the US had plans for military involvement but haven't heard anything besides that https://www.wsws.org...

Wow, I never heard of that. Good find Varrack. Too bad, 40,000 died, and we didn't do anything.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:37:30 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:27:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:03:07 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.

what about what happened in Sri Lanka then?

I saw this which said the US had plans for military involvement but haven't heard anything besides that https://www.wsws.org...

Wow, I never heard of that. Good find Varrack. Too bad, 40,000 died, and we didn't do anything.

Not sure why. There may have been a reason for not intervening. But Intervention isn't just about stopping genocide, it's about stopping terrorist networks and stabilizing regions that are in chaos.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:42:50 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:37:30 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:27:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:03:07 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:35:16 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:10:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:57:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:44:33 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

ok nvm then, but how come nobody from Combodia actually was fighting? It says the Viet Cong.

I'm not an expert on the war, but from what I've concluded you there were people fighting against it, but Pol Pot's rule was too powerful and the country needed help in stopping the genocide that was happening. Kind of like the Holocaust.

SO, America couldn't stop it?

The Vietnam War is the only major war that America has lost, so know it wasn't stopped by the US, although I think the contribution was helpful.

what about what happened in Sri Lanka then?

I saw this which said the US had plans for military involvement but haven't heard anything besides that https://www.wsws.org...

Wow, I never heard of that. Good find Varrack. Too bad, 40,000 died, and we didn't do anything.

Not sure why. There may have been a reason for not intervening. But Intervention isn't just about stopping genocide, it's about stopping terrorist networks and stabilizing regions that are in chaos.

From what I read, the region was very destabilized from decades of fighting.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
PyschoticWiz
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 7:49:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Completely disagree with the argument that 'intervention' was necessary in Iraq. The only reason the US and UK invaded Iraq was to gain access to oil in the Middle East and support their own economic interests. The murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's was definitely not 'necessary' you dipshit. Also, most intervention from the US post-world war 2 has had adverse affects, even if it wasn't the intention of the US. America thrives on War and conflict, its why they're so rich. They start conflicts within countries by invading and then make money from it by loaning weapons/money to countries while The US sit back and enjoy the show.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 12:04:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 7:49:17 AM, PyschoticWiz wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Completely disagree with the argument that 'intervention' was necessary in Iraq. The only reason the US and UK invaded Iraq was to gain access to oil in the Middle East and support their own economic interests. The murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's was definitely not 'necessary' you dipshit. Also, most intervention from the US post-world war 2 has had adverse affects, even if it wasn't the intention of the US. America thrives on War and conflict, its why they're so rich. They start conflicts within countries by invading and then make money from it by loaning weapons/money to countries while The US sit back and enjoy the show.

The oil argument is super dumb, but I agree that Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was our biggest "ally" against the Iranians. If I had invaded, I would have gotten a different dictator in control that (1) liked us and (2) was less b!tchy and used them to fight Iran if needed.

And if we were really there for oil, why did ZERO US companies get oil contracts? (http://content.time.com...) rekt
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
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:44:25 PM, tajshar2k wrote:

I got the book on foreign policy that was mentioned in the video, since I'm pretty interested in the internationalist side of the issue. I used to have a more isolationist view of foreign policy like many people do now, but I don't want to hold that view when there may be many reasons in which it is the incorrect way to look and international relations. So once I finish I may start some debates on the subject.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem is that the US isn't always consistent in its foreign policy. Sometimes we intervene, such as with the 1990 Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or when we toppled the dictatorship in Haiti in 1996. However, we stood on the sidelines when the Rwanda massacre occurred, the tragedies unfurled in Nigeria as Boko Haram extended its reign, and so forth. There was also the genocide in Darfur.

What can we do? We can't always intervene, but we can't always stand on the sidelines. Empowering nations to solve their own regional issues seems like the best theoretical idea. Commanding respect through pragmatic diplomacy and limiting the use of military force would help us counter the "blowback" of militant groups and terrorists that we have encountered.

Tl;dr the United States should devolve its foreign policy making to the nations who are playing the game. We should empower nations and work with them to solve their problems as a partner, and not try to solve problems ourselves like we largely tried to do in Iraq (2003-).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 12:02:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:39:52 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:32:48 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:30:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
No don't get me wrong, I watched the video, I just warning viewers, that the university always takes the conservative stance.

I disagree with a few things.

1. We always go into help other countries.

This is pretty much false. How come 95% (I ballparked the %) of our interventions are in the middle east?

They aren't.

There were atrocities happening in Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, yet the government didn't even care.

It isn't saying that America should always intervene when something bad happens. Some interventions shouldn't happen because involvement would just make things worse, like the Syrian conflict, and some conflicts can be solved without invasion like diplomacy with Reagan and the Cold War. In situations like Iraq though, it was necessary. The video is attacking the isolationist stance and the belief that America should just lie back and not do anything.

Ya I agree with that, but I believe we should be consistent . In Sri Lanka's case, 40,000 civilians were bombarded, when they were guaranteed a no fire zone. Obama himself urged them to advance to the no fire zone. In Cambodia case, millions of people were killed by Pol Pot's communist regime. Why didn't we intervene there? Isn't the genocide of millions a good enough reason to stop it?

We did. Richard Nixon launched an invasion of Cambodia and system of military operations in the 1970's that were part of the Vietnam War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Im going to correct you right there, the US attacked Cambodia before the Khumer Rouge took power. The campaign ended in 1970, 5 years before Pol Pot marched into Phnom Penh. The US's goal in the campaign was to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, in fact at the time the US thought the Khumer Rouge was just another branch of the Vietcong. Ultimately Pol Pot was removed from power (at least in Eastern Cambodia) by the Vietnamese in 1979. Afterwards the US, England, and China actually supported the Khumer Rouge because of their anti-Vietnamese attitude.
On your original post I would have to say that while it would be good in theory, it would not go as well in practice. The US is after all a nation with its own interests and those interests would most likely affect its policy. Just look at the cold war, the US backed military regimes (Batista and Pinochet to name a few) despite claiming to be a force of democracy and freedom. Ultimately it is clear that no nation can act as a world police as they will be influenced by their own interests.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 12:08:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.



What's in it for America to act as the world's policeman? Police get paid for their services. We don't. We do it for free. It's too much to ask of us to assume that role. We shouldn't use American blood and American treasure without just compensation. That's my problem with it. If people really need our help, and it wouldn't be unethical to intervene, then we should either be paid at the time or have some sort of insurance scheme going on. If they don't pay, then too bad.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 4:08:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 4:37:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
This guy makes an interesting point about America's role in world affairs. Basically what he concludes is that America Should be the world's policeman because it has to be. If it stops, terrorism will fill the gaps of the bridges between the world and people like Hitler and Hussein will ride to power while America sits back and does nothing.



Careful, they have been getting a really bad name for themselves for their false information and so on.