I find most of what was said so far in the comments for "No" votes pretty confusing...
"Whose the alternative?" Surely an international body would be preferable.
"...We have made huge strides in protecting democracy in many locations such as France..." There's a difference between a nation asking an allied nation for help and a self-appointed "defender of democracy" sticking its nose in when it wasn't invited.
"...Have provide much needed military support to weak countries such as in the Vietnam War." Communist North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. We didn't succeed in protecting South Vietnam, we only succeeded in killing over a million North Vietnamese in the process of letting them get what they wanted.
Strangest of all, in my opinion, is the assumption that the U.S. Military is the only thing keeping the Islamic State from taking over the world.
A real world police would have forced Diem (the dictator of South Vietnam) to sign the Geneva Accords and than follow through with the vote which would pick the next leader of Vietnam, instead the US funded his corrupt and tyrannical dictatorship, funded secret campaigns which devastated villages throughout Indo-China, than left thousands of people who helped them stranded in a hostile country.
@adoblivione Interesting enough for you to bring up Vietnam. Do you know how the war actually ended? With a US victory believe it or not. The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" were signed on 27 January 1973, officially ending US involvement in the conflict and establishing a cease fire agreement between the North and South. The US (specifically Nixon) promised to help the South again if the North ever violated the cease fire, and left both nations to begin rebuilding. Then watergate happened and Nixon resigned. It was around the same time that the North began an all new offensive into South Vietnam. And guess what happened next. The South asked for US help, which was swiftly meet with the rallying cries of protesters across the US demanding an end to the war. No more fighting. And the new, dominantly Democratic Congress agreed with those protesters. And so the US sat back and watched as Saigon fell and one of the largest genocides and migrant crisis in recent history happened. Isn't it interesting that the next time the US would leave an ally to fend for itself would be Iraq? I wonder how that ended?
@komododragon8 Actually, the genocide part was typed in first more as an afterthought, but I replaced it with migrant crisis afterwards. I simply forgot to remove the word when I made the correction. Such things tend to happen when I make large blocks of text. Though somewhere between 230,000 and 415,000 did die as a result of execution or reeducation camps with 200,000 to 400,000 boat people dying trying to flee the country.
5853: It is true that North Vietnam conducted a large amount of purges following their victory. Had the US been operating under idea of evacuating South Vietnamese people who would be targeted by North Vietnam, more lives would have been saved. There is also a good chance that had South Vietnam won the war, even more people would have died do to South Vietnam's torture campaigns targeting Commie sympathizers and its oppressive policy towards Buddhists. In the end, had the US forced South Vietnam to uphold the Geneva Accords, we could have had a smooth transition of power, along with a more organized evacuation of South Vietnamese people at risk.
@shalal12 and please tell me how my brain is "Pure washed by propaganda and Islam phobia", when I have a bunch of Islamic friends? Not to mention the propaganda is true, they behead people on video for Christ sake. You act like the USA is feeding us false information 24/7 like Nazi Germany.
ISIS is a threat because they have lashed out at us, beheaded many civilians of ours, and also have been involved in Al-Qaeda before, which contributed to the attacks on 9/11. Now I'm sure the US has beheaded people before, but that was not in the modern era. We don't behead people anymore because of most liberals opposing the death penalty. Of course, if someone is sentenced to death, they will be killed, but not beheaded. To us, ISIS is "barbaric" because western society is as extreme as their society. You don't see us beheading Russian people to pose a threat to Russia. ISIS has also established that they will do this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/30/article-2674736-1F46221200000578-100_634x381.jpg and conquer many civilizations in Africa and the Middle East. Now, if the Islamic State was that large, don't you think they would be very powerful? Why not hit them while they are weak?
TBR, there is three things wrong with your question to me.
1. I never stated we have NEVER beheaded anyone intentionally, so you're wrong about questioning me on that one.
2. We've never beheaded anyone on camera, on the internet, in front of millions of people. That's just ludicrous. So asking me: "Do you honestly think no head has been severed from a body in all the deaths we have caused?", I believe one has, of course, but do we tape our executions in front of millions? Hell no.
3. Why are you framing the USA for beheading people? The most common form of execution nowadays is a gunshot to the head, or the electric chair. The last time beheading was common was in the medieval ages. We don't intentionally execute people with a knife in front of a camera.
We tarred and feathered quite a few people during the American Revolution and printed media about it, such as this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Philip_Dawe_(attributed),_The_Bostonians_Paying_the_Excise-man,_or_Tarring_and_Feathering_(1774)_-_02.jpg
@TheGerman - You implied that we beheaded people in the long ago. ' Now I'm sure the US has beheaded people before, but that was not in the modern era. We don't behead people anymore" That is not true, and it seems now you agree. "1. I never stated we have NEVER beheaded anyone intentionally, so you're wrong about questioning me on that one. "
"3. Why are you framing the USA for beheading people?" We have killed so very many in the M.E. My point is, we have killed many many, and many of these deaths undoubtedly resulted in beheading. We video tape many of them. We watch many of them (war porn). We have no moral high ground anymore.
The United States has an underlying idealism rooted in freedom and liberty for all people. We have not been a perfect nation and we have made mistakes. That's undeniable as history proves this out. However, we are also a nation who looks forward and seeks to better ourselves. That's part of our nature, and in spite of our errors, we also have shown a profound ability to make corrections toward liberty and freedom, because deep down, we believe in it for all people. We just simply believe that is the best path toward a better life. It is the roots of who we are and why we exist as a country. We, as a people, are deeply opposed to tyranny and oppression, and no matter what we disagree about as individuals, as a nation we are strongly in favor of liberty, and opposed to tyranny. We've overcome slavery and are continuing to work toward greater equality for those who have suffered due to discrimination. On the subject of being the world's policeman. Well, too often we realistically have no choice. We are a country of immigrants, and as such, we interact constantly with the world. There was a time when we were an isolationist country, but those days are behind us. They really are. September 11th 2001 was one of the historical moments that sealed our fate as no longer having the choice of being isolationist. The world is growing smaller and smaller. Especially in a country full of immigrants from every nation. It would be nice to be able to put our heads in the sand and ignore this reality. I just don't believe that is possible at this stage. When we see tyranny and oppression around the world, we must act, because if it is there, (wherever there is) it is just a matter of time before it reaches our shores. President Kennedy put it this way when he visited Germany many years ago, when in German he proclaimed: "I am a Berliner". President Reagan revisited the issue during his times and touted "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". Americans have a strong distaste for tyranny and oppression. Not only for ourselves, but for everyone in the world. We know that we are connected to everyone else.
You think USA is in Syria to stop Islamic terrorism?!! USA fights with ISIS when needed and helps other terrorist groups. It is USA which weakens Syri'a army, the army which fights with ISIS directly with full power.
I believe we have a duty to protect this world and all of humanity. There are to many threats around this world, and to many people dying due to corrupt governments. It is our duty to spread our freedom to other nations to make this big blue world more peaceful and safer. No matter the cost no matter the deaths we have to do it.
We don't want your help. Just leave us alone. You gave Vietnam a pure freedom by raping thousands of women. You also gave freedom to innocent Iraqi girl who was raped by Americans, Your soldiers killed her brothers and father so that they can easily rape her. Having raped her they killed and burned her body. And....
@shalal12 Sigh that was not just us, while it did happen both slides did it. North Vietnam did it more then us. So you do not want to be in our alliances? You do not want our money? Our rights? Our freedoms? Look at the world, the usa and its allies our on top of the world. We have the most freedoms, most money and most powerful military aka NATO. All I want is a world without crimes, a world without corruption, a world where no one lives in fear and everyone is safe and free( expete criminals)
We send our boys and girls to fight for the greater good, it may not always work our. But rember we lose our men overseas fighting in these nations. We help a number of nations in many ways. We give billions in forging aid. You know nothing of us or our way of life or me. So do not jump the gun before you listen to what we have to say.
Thanks for your compassion.
I have a suggestion.
Ask your government to spend the money for you NOT for helping us. Ask your government to leave Syria, do not help Syrian rebels.
If your government is wealthy, it should help its own people NOT Syrian rebels!
@shalal12 I am sorry but I can not do that. I will not turn my back on that. You can hate me if you must, but I believe we should not back down and we should spread freedom, to matter the cost. We our the only ones able to do it. What about Russia in Syria? What about all the dead in Syria, ISIS, Corruption, rape ex.
To you all. At this point, ISIS is responsible for ~120k deaths. The US involvement in Iraq has a CIVILIAN body count ~110k. Can you stop for one second and ponder that? Can you possibly think about how we are perceived in that context?
The conversation up thread about beheading is interesting in this regard. We go ape-sh1t when we see a video of one guy getting his head chopped off. How many mangled body's do you guess the average kid living in Syria has seen?
@TBR I never said it was clear, but the area's that need us we should be there. In my opinion the Syrian people need us to restore stability in that area. There are a number of nations I would want to invaded but I know we can't invaded some of them. Do you want to know who I would want to attack?
Maybe instead we should be redefining what an enemy combatant is. Since we call our own people who aid and embed, criminals themselves. They arent innocent civilians if they are going about their lives normally, not reporting enemies amongst them, effectively hiding the enemy and their movements.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - So you are trying to justify the massive death toll caused by the US by redefinition? Aside from... Well everything about that statement, do you think it makes ANY difference in the local perception? Do you think anyone in the region cares how the US classified their dead father?
@TBR People would die if we didn't try anything, remember what happened after WW1? We pulled everything back and did not get involved, we watched and never sent troops until millions died, and even then only due to japan attacking us. My point is yes people do die, but it is all for the greater god. Will we always win and meet our goals, no but that dose not mean we should give up and go to our homeland and forget our impotence in world affairs.
"How many mangled body's do you guess the average kid living in Syria has seen?"
Well their desensitized to it. Not saying its ok ... But it certainly doesnt mean we should be treating the idea the same. I dont think the alternative, where we assume hypersensitivity over everything going on out there, is the way to go. Like you said, they arent like us ... Sitting in our armchairs and going apeshit over stuff we are mostly sheltered from. Our standard is not all that good, either.
"Aside from... Well everything about that statement, do you think it makes ANY difference in the local perception? Do you think anyone in the region cares how the US classified their dead father?"
It might make them think twice to know what we consider them to be over here, were we to redefine. They might not be so quick to try and play the innocent/ignorant civilian card to their advantage when they see wrong doings going on around them, they might grow a little integrity knowing what might become of them. The entire Terrorism concept was built on this civilian death toll business anyways. They know how to capitalize on it. Theyve been using it as a double standard to make a joke out of us for years. Its how they win.
@stargate - You can't just replicate situations. Or, put another way, the argument can be made that the M.E. Is a direct result of WWII. If you want to make these sort of connections, you need to look at them all.
Maybe if they were over there. If that were the case though from our people, it says something about where we are as people. How about those people in the middle east. The ones that have experienced it. What do you suppose it takes them to see coming from their own people to make them want to beg for the US to come help? Or to train to fight and police their own people? Theyve been butchered by their own for so long ... They know better than our people do about what the trade off is there. This all sounds like a grass is greener type thing. Most people over here that would be so quick to turncoat have no idea what it is really like over there.
As an example, and I direct this at the both of you, but would like stargate to comment, Hezbollah gets VERY high polling numbers throughout the areas we are discussing. From the perspective of "the people" they are great!
@TheGerman - You implied that we beheaded people in the long ago. ' Now I'm sure the US has beheaded people before, but that was not in the modern era. We don't behead people anymore" That is not true, and it seems now you agree. "1. I never stated we have NEVER beheaded anyone intentionally, so you're wrong about questioning me on that one. " I'm going to question your brain. I obviously stated the US has beheaded people in the past, by my earlier statement. I then stated "I never stated we have NEVER beheaded anyone intentionally", meaning we probably have in the past. Thanks for proving my point even more by that statement. "Are you sure.... Think I can't find you some?" Please do! Post the link right here! "We have killed so very many in the M.E. My point is, we have killed many many, and many of these deaths undoubtedly resulted in beheading. We video tape many of them. We watch many of them (war porn). We have no moral high ground anymore." I have never seen those tapes because I don't watch that type of porn, that's sick.
@TheGerman - No... I think it is you who is missing the point. It was very clear you were talking "in the past". My point, yet again is, our bombs and snipers and... On-and-on have taken the heads off many people in the middle east. Not an insignificant number of them civilians. We, in the west, see a couple videos of beheading and loose our collective sh1t. Again I say. How many headless corpses do you think the people of the M.E. Have seen? Dead as a direct result of the US military? Just how many?
The US doesn't just shoot random civilians, I hope you know that. Most deaths weren't intended. For example, bombing a ISIS stronghold, and civilians were inside when we didn't have intel on the civilians. The US doesn't just shoot random civilians. And if they do it was for a purpose, like them being linked with some terrorist group. Of course we've shot people in the Middle East, I know this. Do we do it intentionally? Most of the time, no.
Well there are two things wrong with those pictures.
1. Most likely those babies were killed unintentionally, as I said. We don't just go around shooting and bombing babies.
2. That picture with the insurgent cut up and the apache shooting the insurgents, those are insurgents... Those are the enemy. How else are we going to kill them, give them a hug? It's war, get over it.
The issue at hand is, just who is the good guy? You say insurgents, others (obstinately the people who you want to 'free') might say otherwise. And dead babies are a negative regardless of intent. If your child was killed by a US bomb, I have no doubt you would not feel kindly to our brand of "help".
It was an accident killing those babies.. We don't do that intentionally. I feel bad for the families of those babies, but it's war. The purpose of war is to eliminate the enemy, right? Are we at war with ISIS? Then we have to eliminate them, like they want to eliminate us. And most likely those are Iraqi Insurgents, right? We invaded Iraq because we had to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We didn't choose to kill those insurgents, they attacked us during the invasion. They basically declared war on us. And what's the purpose of war. As I said before, we have to eliminate ISIS, they're at war with us.
Nah Wylted, my premise is that ISIS just beheaded our citizens, plus most European nation's citizens, on camera and on Youtube in front of millions. Not to mention they were involved with Al-Qaeda, who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11, but lets just forget that! I have many muslim friends in school, so that accusation is false.
9/11 was blowback from foreign intervention. If we didn't have an interventionist foreign policy, it wouldn't have happened. The smart response to stop future 9/11s is having a non interventionist foreign policy, and ISIS hasn't killed any Americans on American soil, minding their own business.
ISIS was formerly part of Al-Qaeda, who carried out the 9/11 attacks. So technically, they have. And it doesn't matter if it was on our soil are their soil. So what you're basically saying, is I could take 100 Chinese citizens to the USA, behead them on camera, and expect China to do nothing about it? I will agree that is why 9/11 happened, and I personally disagree with intervention in the Middle East. However, because we intervened in the Middle East, they struck back with 9/11 and the World Trade bombing. So isn't it natural that we strike back too?
"Why did we HAVE to go to Iraq?" The Persian Gulf War, we suspected Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and if so, we would be threatened. Kuwait was then invaded by Iraq, so we invaded Iraq. "Since when have we been at war with ISIS?" I guess you forgot when Barack Obama gave the war authorization, and asked Congress to get involved.. Unfortunately Congress denied it. But we're still involved fully, are you confused? Where have you been the last year? We've been bombing ISIS ever since February.
"So isn't it natural that we strike back too?" No. It is absurd. It is just about the worse sort of logic ever. If we were SURE that we were making bigger problems for our self in the future if we fight, would you still want to kill more? Well, we have proven at this point that more messing in the M.E. Means more problems. How about we just leave them? Just walk the he11 away? What is your fear?
If the fear is beheading, we don't need to go that far to find more deserving "enemies" http://mrconservative.com/2014/09/48745-graphic-mexican-terrorist-cartel-beheads-4-women-in-message-to-america-21/
No, my fear of ISIS is that they'll find some way to attack us on American soil. It's far too late to just pull out of the war, ISIS is the major threat to the US right now, we have to end this war. If we do, most Americans will be settled. Muslim racism will go down too. And to your 9/11 comment, about walking the hell away, EVERYONE wanted us to get involved in the Middle East after that. To find Bin Laden, to stop the Taliban and terror in the Middle East. Even Democrats wanted that. Nobody just said "Ah, f8ck it! We'll just do nothing!" Everyone was begging for war.
Yes, their goal is to unify and expand, pretty obvious. Lets say they get powerful enough, then they will be able to carry out an attack on US or UK soil, Wylted. And again, if we said "We're Neutral!" right now, they would never forgive us, that's a fact.
Well there's 2 things wrong with your statement, Wylted.
1. Japan is a COMPLETELY different government from 1945/20th century. They are more democratic, and aren't as aggressive.
2. Japan isn't attacking random countries like Japan did back then. ISIS, shown by there plans, wants to expand from Europe, all the way to India.
What is certain to result in more hatred of the west is further military intervention. Want to insure more desire to attack? Want to insure more radicals bent of terrorism aimed at the west? Just keep doing the same cr@p they have over-and-over.
There current strategy is to capture territory, so they can become a country, and all countries want to expand. It's not an evil goal, or even a threat. You need to go to the CFR website. There is a reason the U.S. Has no interest in doing anything other than containing ISIS.
"all countries want to expand. It's not an evil goal, or even a threat" In territory? Really? The map of the world hasn't changed much since 2000... Most developed countries don't want to expand. Some developing countries don't either.
"Are you completely dismissive of all their charges of western interference? They have told us time and again why they hate us. We just ignore it." Well we ignore it because of all the tensions in the past.. And you really think ISIS will just sign a peace treaty?
First, using the 2000+ as your timeline is way to short. We have been screwing around with THEIR borders since WWII. Second, as Wylted is point to - nation states you can deal with. Disorderly fighting groups are impossible to deal with
That's right. If it doesn't have anything to do with race he doesn't care. Maybe if I pointed out to him that blacks are over represented in the military, he'd be all about non interventionist foreign policy.
That's right. If it doesn't have anything to do with race he doesn't care. Maybe if I pointed out to him that blacks are over represented in the military, he'd be all about non interventionist foreign policy.
"That's right. If it doesn't have anything to do with race he doesn't care. Maybe if I pointed out to him that blacks are over represented in the military, he'd be all about non interventionist foreign policy." I'm not racist, please elucidate, how am I racist? Quote any racist comments I made.
There are problems around this world, and not all will be solved unless we are willing to use military force. But the world needs us, there is to much at stake now. We can not pull back now, around 1/4. To many people die around the world due to war and oppressive regimes. I do not care if you hate the fact we are the "police" but it is needed. People do die, it dose not always work but it is necessary. We can not pull back, and give up. I believe in justice and the greater good. This for me is part of the greater good. Change this big blue world one part at a time, and when needed though force.
"Also what the hell does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?"
The Islamic State's borders happen to overlap with the borders of Iraq. Along with Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, all of northern Africa and even on down into Asia and Australia. If their influence is everywhere, they must be fought everywhere. We wont make any progress separating a country's sovereignty from what their people decide to do within that country. They are not separate entities. They literally make up one another.