American Foreign Policy

I find it troublesome labelling someone like Pinochet a "lesser evil". His human rights violations are well documented. The fact is that he is not the only example of a US backed dictator. There are dozens.

You seem to be under the impression that whenever America supports a country or leader it is because they are doing it for peace and freedom in the long. Make no mistake, the reasons for war or support are mostly selfish and economic. American has exploited many of these countries natural resources and used the cheap labour for their own ends. That is why even after the communist threat was defeated the US continued support of the rulers despite their crimes.

I'm a realist and I deal in modern politics. I agree totally that the funding of various groups in the past by the US was reprehensible, however I certainly don't agree that they should allow their past to stop them from defending their national security in the most robust ways possible, especially as every adversarial nation is doing the same but simply lack the capabilities of the US. Essentially, anything before the end of the Cold War is of little relevance to modern political action, history certainly plays a part in modern political landscapes, but to criticise a modern US action based on Pinochet is really quite pointless.

The three countries you mentioned failed to be liberated, and the people to blame for this are, respectively: hard-line Islamist nut cases, hard-line Islamist nut cases and the Communist Viet Cong. In neither case was it America's fault that the countries became less free, or failed to become free. In (probably) all cases, but most prominently in Vietnam, the Americans did commit some atrocities, but these were always dwarfed by those of the other side and ideologically speaking, the Americans represented the only side worth supporting in all three wars.

I would not count a life in China as a "better life", due to its attacks on what I regard as fundamental human rights such as free speech. Freedom is a necessary and sufficient condition for the betterment of the life of the average person.

Colonialism (and its aftermath) did probably provide an ideal breeding ground for sectarianism as we see in Iraq, but I would hardly say the region was flourishing under Ottoman rule (which was also colonial, let's not forget, and lasted for hundreds of years). In fact, in 1914 the Ottoman empire was basically evil and genocidal, ready to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenians in death marches across what is now Syria, during and after the war. In other words, it had to go. I think you're being a bit naive if you think the troubles in the middle east have their roots in Western intervention. The problem is essentially bad ideas, bad ideology. I disagree with you that human suffering is generally caused by "natural hardships": I believe that abject human suffering as we see in regions like the middle east, is entirely avoidable in this day and age through modern forms of democratic governance, with respect for law and human rights.

Western Europe, South Korea and Japan were also overrun by fundamentalist leaders, yet they are now relatively 'free'. The difference was in America's approach.

As for the atrocities committed by American soldiers, I do not believe they can ever have been dwarfed by other atrocities. They came under the pretence that they were going to save Vietnam, instead they behaved in the way they did. They have been known to misbehave in most countries they 'liberate'. Even though they were the ones holding the weapons, I think it is the arrogance of the American stance, and the way soldiers are recruited that are to blame. Highly volatile individuals are sent over, told they are the saviours of the innocent, only to find out the innocents don't want to be saved. Pair that with desensitisation and a climate of violence and it is unavoidable that troops will misbehave.

So you agree that freedom as you see it is more than opportunities for a better life and food. Indeed, in many instances the 'freedom' brought by America did not provide either, all it did was give a voice to all which led to violence and civil war, which destroyed the populations' quality of life. In my opinion ideology is never more important than a populations' quality of life. In essence, I think it is more important that they are alive and fed than that they can say what they want.

I maintain that it was up to the population to decide what to do. We cannot swoop in and 'liberate' them and push our ideology on them, because it will backfire. (unless we give them lots and lots and lots of money and trade opportunities and make them near to our equals) Even then, the countries may come to resent us.

I believe road accidents, illnesses, natural disasters etc. cause more hardship than any dictator ever could, and I believe that giving foreign aid to the population through organisations like the red cross will do more for it than any invasion ever could.

I completely agree with you that a respect for law and human rights is ideal, I just think it is up to these countries to sort themselves out and realise this for themselves, they will eventually, and it will lead to a more stable and healthy government than any foreign intervention ever could. Yes, people will suffer, and probably die at the hands of their oppressors, but there is nothing we can do, and intervening will only make it worse. All that can be done is putting a plaster on the wound by sending NGO's, food packages, doctors... People will die and suffer, no matter what we do, but more of them will die and suffer if we send an invasion force.

If you regard the American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Vietnam, as equally culpable for human suffering as their opponents, then you simply do not know about their opponents. The savagery of Iraqi resistance fighters (Islamists) against Iraqi or other civilians (e.g. reporters) and of course troops, knows no bounds; the same goes for the Afghan Taliban and their "recruits" (placed in quotation marks because treating the Taliban like a legitimate, civilised army is a joke). When the public in the West heard about My Lai, they responded by ending the Vietnam war. When people heard about US troops' alleged torture in Abu Ghraib prison, there was widespread outrage. And yet Abu Ghraib under Saddam's rule was actually more barbaric than under the Americans! I'm not saying this to somehow justify what happened there, but to illustrate that the American atrocities we speak of are the exception rather than the rule - when worse atrocities occur under people like the Taliban or ISIS, it's just par for the course and their general way of war. So the Americans do have a right to take the moral high ground in almost all of their conflicts.

When you talk about freedom leading to civil war and unrest, what you really mean to say is that totalitarians hijack the revolution. This is true in many places. It's been true in Iraq certainly, and Afghanistan too. But the people to blame for this are not the Americans, they are the totalitarians who turn what could have been a vast improvement into hell, and spit on the dreams of all good people. Now I want to point out that I am sceptical that the US' motives are always good. More often than not the US' motives are more about its own economic and political interest than anything else. But still, the point remains that if the US really won its war in Afghanistan, say, it would become a free country. If its opponents won the war, it would become hell on Earth. Therefore, even if you didn't agree with starting the war in the first place, once they are there you should support them and their allies.

I think foreign aid is a good thing, but the primary motive for humanity should be to make the world free and democratic. I don't know what the correlation is between frequency of natural disasters and human well-being, but I should think it is much lower than the correlation between dictatorship / non-free governance and society, and well-being. The trouble with foreign aid to dictatorships is always that dictatorships are inherently corrupt, and therefore you may be wasting your money until you get rid of the dictatorship. But I fully agree that ideas cannot simply be foisted onto a population; the population must want freedom before it can become free.

I don't think the troops are equally culpable for the population's suffering, I just find it unacceptable that saviours turned into oppressors. In these wars there is no moral high ground. Only aggressors on both sides that hurt the innocent, and that is deplorable.

It was predictable that fundamentalists were going to hijack the revolution. It happens in nearly all revolutions. Let's just go back to the French revolution. Gradual improvement like in China, is always better in my eyes.

Why should that be the primary aim? Isn't freedom just power glorified? To me it is so much ore important that people are happy and fed. Freedom is a means not an end. Same goes for democracy. The correlation you cite, if it exists, could point towards dictators swooping in when the population is already suffering and weak and taking advantage with false promises.

I have to disagree with the last statement. I think democracy is a means to an end, but that end is freedom. A free society is something I think all of humanity should aspire to. Simply living with food on your plate is not a desirable outcome. People living in Chile when it was a military dictatorship had food on their plates. The economy was doing pretty well in fact. But it was a brutal society with no human rights. I don't think that's desirable at all. Same goes for Cuba, and many other countries which are not in dire poverty but are politically oppressed.

I do agree with the statement about revolutions though. Hence, I would not advocate a Western intervention in Syria and think it was a bad idea to fund the rebels in Libya. The thing about revolutions is that sadly they do more-often-than-not, turn the place backwards rather than forwards; the examples I always think of are Russia in 1917 and Iran in 1979. But this is a point about pessimism, and whether or not America's aims are unrealistic. It is not saying that America is therefore the "real terrorist" as this thread seems to claim.

There is a moral high ground in most conflicts. Perhaps not in the Syrian one. I don't support either side in that. But in the Afghan conflict there is certainly a moral high ground because one side supports the establishment of a liberal democracy, and the other one supports its antithesis.

Of course a free society is something to aspire to, but if it's a choice between quality of life and freedom I'd choose quality of life every time. I'd rather be in a society where I am alive, and so are my love ones than a society where I can complain as much as I want but my life and the lives of my loved ones are in danger. Which is why I don't support the majority of America's interventions. Especially because they intervene for their own interests, not to help the innocent. They are essentially slaughtering innocents to get more money or power and pretending they're doing it to save the very people they are killing.

Revolutions aren't half as glorious as people make them out to be. No idea is worth the lives of the innocent.

It's often been said America only pushes a democracy to weaken the government so they can get what they want out of it.

"..including within their own borders.." Explain.

Post Cold War is pretty much the same to be honest and stuffed full with illegal American interventions in foreign countries and subversion of democratically elected governments. You don't seem stupid- do your research.

The assumption that most nations would equal or surpass US crimes against humanity if they had the same capabilities is flawed. Trotsky, given that he represented the radical leftists in the Bolshevik party, could potentially have been worse than Stalin had he come to power. Regardless we blame Stalin for his various actions not conjure an imaginary situation and say "it would have been just as bad".

I think part of the problem with America is the idea that if you don't like what your country is doing, it makes you less of an American.

So well said. My Mom thinks it's terrible that I'm not patriotic and I don't agree with a lot of the things we do.

See what I don't like is how the US is allied with countries like KSA who have a very hardline stance, and are exporting this all over the world in the form of "aid"

Not long ago, Bin Laden was a freedom fighter, because he fought against the Russians (he got his training from the US) After the Russian war, Bin Laden set his sights on "The big devil" ie: the United States. That's when he was branded a terrorist. When the United States is targeted

Would the USA, be happy if Pakistan suddenly started to send drones down on the US, because the US had suspected terrorists? Would Pakistan be able to get away with saying that the US is somehow harbouring terrorists, because the US isn't obliging by Pakistan's demands?

On the KSA thing, we're happily allied with a country that exports a hard line stance, and when **** hits the fan, we blame other countries...

The Arab Spring is basically completely engineered by the US.

Say guys.. wonder where AlQaida got all that money for all those weapons for all those rebellions..

Well you are getting more and more plutocratic. Maybe that?

Of course a free society is something to aspire to, but if it's a choice between quality of life and freedom I'd choose quality of life every time. I'd rather be in a society where I am alive, and so are my love ones than a society where I can complain as much as I want but my life and the lives of my loved ones are in danger. Which is why I don't support the majority of America's interventions. Especially because they intervene for their own interests, not to help the innocent. They are essentially slaughtering innocents to get more money or power and pretending they're doing it to save the very people they are killing.

Revolutions aren't half as glorious as people make them out to be. No idea is worth the lives of the innocent.

It's often been said America only pushes a democracy to weaken the government so they can get what they want out of it.

Just keep snooping around, uncle Sam. I like that... hehe...

Posted from TSR Mobile

"...but if it's a choice between quality of life and freedom I'd choose quality of life everytime." WOW. I hope that way of thinking doesn't catch on.

No idea is worth the lives of the innocent, but some revolutions or overthrows of government are necessary. It was necessary to overthrow the Nazis in WWII; it was necessary to overthrow the Communist regimes of Asia and Eastern Europe during the Cold war. Unfortunately civilian casualties always occur, and they are always a tragedy, but sometimes the alternative is far worse.

I don't regard a society in which you are in immediate danger as a free one. I don't regard today's Afghanistan or Iraq as free societies. All I was saying was that in order to make them free, some form of overthrow of their previous governments was / is necessary, and also that since the American troops (as well as coalition forces) are now there (in the case of Afghanistan), if you support making it free, you should support those forces because they are the only hope the country has at this moment. Whether you believe invading them in the first place was a good or bad idea is beside the point.