Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

How America eliminates its opponents

Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 12:00:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Interference in the internal affairs of other countries, it seems, is one of the US's foreign policy principles. In pursuit of their goals and protecting their own national, regional and international interests, the United States uses a variety of methods of intervention in the internal politics of other countries. One example of this can be considered "intermediary coups" in which Americans have withdrawn their formal leaders of the role of intermediaries in the implementation of their own policies.
In US foreign policy doctrines, since the time of Truman and Reagan presidency ending, always affirmed the right of Americans to support the interests of the "free world" in his opposition to communism, despite the fact that this support implied a violation of national sovereignty of others.

The United States should maintain its role as "indispensable country" different from all the other countries of the world. This was stated by President Obama during his address to the graduates of the prestigious Military Academy at West Point in 2014.
Obama also said the United States would use military force unilaterally when that will require "core interests." The question is whether the United States recognize the right of other countries to do the same, in the American president's speech sounded.

Obama said the United States after the Second World War have been wise enough to create an organization for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of human progress. Among these organizations, he called NATO and the UN. He then listed the countries that, according to him, defied international law and international institutions: it is Russia, Iran and China. It is significant that the US president described the threat arising from these states, speaking to graduates of an elite military academy. However, despite the fact that the President of the United States insists on the right to use force unilaterally, he acknowledged that not all problems can be solved by military means.

Taking into account the lack of experience of the United States in the creation of an exploitative economy in the Third World and the desire to set up their own databases on the borders with Russia and China, the Americans have always opposed any revolution or change in the government of individual countries. After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the basis for the implementation of the intervention was the desire to maintain the existing world order. For this reason, "brokerage revolutions" still prove Washington's interference in the internal affairs of other countries and, according to the American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, the principle entrenched in the political system of the United States.

However, the behavior of American politicians in international affairs due to a specific set of domestic interests and the kind of willingness of the international environment for the implementation of aggression and intervention.
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:12:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The unilateral use of force is legal under certain circumstances. If Country X has committed something which can reasonably be considered an act of war against Country Y, then Country Y would not need to seek UN permission to go to war against Country X.
The laws of war are somewhat dated and hardly touch upon the subject of non-state actors committing acts of terrorism if at all, but I think most people would agree harbouring terrorists who have attacked another country can be interpreted by that country an act of war.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of

The DDO Blog: