Should the United States reduce its interference in other countries?

Reply 20

HumpyDumpy

2

Original post by Sweet n Sour

No. It's called being an ally.

You'll never see like Tahiti interfering because it's weak.

Yes, It's mostly about the allies thinggy

Reply 21

Fango_Jett

17

Original post by Jeremy T

I was making a comparison of scale. The US brand is far more prevalent in Britain than the British brand is in the US. Because some people don't like my angle or conclusions, they seem to be denying this fact which is so glaring.
Did you ever watch James Burke's Connections series? They were a classic example of how something started out good and then got increasingly trashified as it got more US-styled.

Yes, I know you are making a comparison, and as I've stated it primarily has to do with the fact that the US entertainment sector is so big because of how much attention it receives. They're far more willing to gamble the money (and in turn reap bigger rewards) than we are in Europe. They've been pioneering for decades by investing, developing and attracting talent for years now and are reaping the rewards.

They're willing to put the money, time and effort into it, whereas a lot of people in Europe are not. I don't see what this has to do with American cultural imperialism.

Reply 22

the bear

20

the US and A give our government invaluable help in reading our emails and internet posts via their Echelon equipment at Menwith Hill.

hi dudes ! have a nice day y'all :wavey:

Reply 23

zyzzyspirit

14

Original post by Jeremy T

Don't judge anyone by what they say.

Are you serious?

The US even put at least one of their own people, their own citizens, Natlie Jaresko, in the fascist government it helped put in power in Kiev.

The far-right parties have received a combined 2% of the Ukrainian votes. How is the Kiev government fascist?

People in Donetsk and Luhansk want to be in Novorossiya. Let them. What's your problem? Your terms "violent" and "bandit" and "regime" are very confused.

No, they don't. They just want the war to end.

When the people in Chechnya created their own separate republic, how did Putin respond? Did he let them be or ordered to bomb and shell the Chechen people?

Reply 24

viddy9

16

Original post by lopterton

Should the United States reduce its interference in other countries? Is this OK with you? Or should this country have less influence?

US exceptionalism is a myth; and US imperialism has both damaged other countries and damaged the United States' standing in the world. It's no wonder that people, even from countries hardly unfriendly to the US, believe that the US is the greatest threat to world peace.

Given that they support and directly arm brutal dictatorships and governments (from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Saddam Hussein, Suharto and Pinochet), invade other countries (from Vietnam to Nicaragua through supporting terrorists to Iraq), drive them into further destitution and kill thousands of innocent people, and show contempt for democracy when a government doesn't align with its interests (from Iran to Guatemala to Chile to Nicaragua to Ukraine to Egypt), I'd say that US interference is exceptionally damaging to the world.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 25

lopterton

OP

2

Original post by zyzzyspirit

No, they don't.

Yes they do: 89% in Donetsk voted for self-rule and 96% in Luhansk.

Reply 26

lopterton

OP

2

Original post by Fango_Jett

Yes, I know you are making a comparison, and as I've stated it primarily has to do with the fact that the US entertainment sector is so big because of how much attention it receives. They're far more willing to gamble the money (and in turn reap bigger rewards) than we are in Europe. They've been pioneering for decades by investing, developing and attracting talent for years now and are reaping the rewards.

They're willing to put the money, time and effort into it, whereas a lot of people in Europe are not. I don't see what this has to do with American cultural imperialism.

Your argument seems to be that US influence is bought and therefore it's OK.

Reply 27

Rakas21

21

Hell no OP.

A world in which the US pulls back is a world in which Russia attempts expansion and the tensions between China and other Asian nations boil over.

You don't have to like them acting as the worlds police but its in the self interest of the west for them to be the dominant power.

Reply 28

zyzzyspirit

14

Original post by lopterton

Yes they do: 89% in Donetsk voted for self-rule and 96% in Luhansk.

Also 99% vote in North Korea - the numbers are completely reliable. :smile:

Reply 29

Jeremy T

7

Original post by zyzzyspirit

Also 99% vote in North Korea - the numbers are completely reliable. :smile:

Make an argument if you can.

Have you ever heard of Stepan Bandera, or is "get back to North Korea" your answer to everything?

Meanwhile, here's some video of a session in the Kiev parliament, showing how it's now run:

[video="youtube;93b7oDqaHr0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93b7oDqaHr0[/video]

You can say it was faked by North Korea if you like.

Reply 30

Rakas21

21

Original post by viddy9

US exceptionalism is a myth; and US imperialism has both damaged other countries and damaged the United States' standing in the world. It's no wonder that people, even from countries hardly unfriendly to the US, believe that the US is the greatest threat to world peace.

Given that they support and directly arm brutal dictatorships and governments (from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Saddam Hussein, Suharto and Pinochet), invade other countries (from Vietnam to Nicaragua through supporting terrorists to Iraq), drive them into further destitution and kill thousands of innocent people, and show contempt for democracy when a government doesn't align with its interests (from Iran to Guatemala to Chile to Nicaragua to Ukraine to Egypt), I'd say that US interference is exceptionally damaging to the world.

Do you honestly believe that the likes of Russia would not take advantage?

The US is certainly selfish and may well damage some nations, but the alternative is certainly not in our self interest.

Reply 31

viddy9

16

Original post by Rakas21

Do you honestly believe that the likes of Russia would not take advantage?

The US is certainly selfish and may well damage some nations, but the alternative is certainly not in our self interest.

With many of the examples I gave, Russia wouldn't take advantage. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, it's not as if Russia would have done so instead, for instance. If the US and NATO hadn't expanded eastwards and supported the coup of the elected leader of Ukraine, would we have the crisis in Ukraine today? I doubt it. Early elections, recall, were agreed upon, but when the core group of rebels decided to overthrow Yanukovich anyway, we didn't protest.

You may be correct in certain cases, but I'm not calling for us or the US to eliminate our interactions with other countries by any means. There are also a number of ways to interpret the question. Assuming that other countries interfere as much as they do today, should the US reduce its interference? Yes. If the likes of Russia increase their interference as a result, should the US reduce its interference? Still yes, I'd argue, but perhaps not by as much.

Ideally, the United States really would be a humanitarian force in the world. If it were, I'd be much more confident in the success of its interventions. I'm not opposed to so-called humanitarian interventions by any means, but our sole goal when assessing the likely consequences of such interventions has to be to reduce suffering. Our national interest cannot come into play at all in such decision-making, unless the negative consequences for us would outweigh the positive consequences for the other country in terms of our intervention. But, as I say, this is an ideal: will national self-interest ever be eliminated from foreign policy decision-making? Almost certainly not.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 32

zyzzyspirit

14

Original post by Jeremy T

Make an argument if you can.

Have you ever heard of Stepan Bandera, or is "get back to North Korea" your answer to everything?

Ukraine praises Stepan Bandera for taking a stance against the Soviet Union, which occupied Eastern Europe for 40 years much like Russia occupied Crimea in Ukraine.

The country needs a national hero.

Meanwhile, here's some video of a session in the Kiev parliament, showing how it's now run:

[video="youtube;93b7oDqaHr0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93b7oDqaHr0[/video]

You can say it was faked by North Korea if you like.

By now you mean a video from the 8th of May of 2014, before most elections even took place?

Great selection of evidence you got there. Totally convinced Kiev is a fascist power. :yy:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 33

marers

11

Original post by zyzzyspirit

The country needs a national hero.

Ha ha.

By now you mean a video from the 8th of May of 2014, before most elections even took place?

Quick rebuttal. Paid or still a volunteer?
The Student Room Group - formerly Acumen Professional Intelligence Ltd.
Rebut that.

Reply 34

L i b

19

I think Britain and America have important roles in the international community and I fully support them continuing to contribute in the way they have. We may not get everything right all of the time, but that is no argument to cease to engage with the rest of the world, including militarily.

Reply 35

HucktheForde

20

Original post by the bear

the US and A give our government invaluable help in reading our emails and internet posts via their Echelon equipment at Menwith Hill.

hi dudes ! have a nice day y'all :wavey:

and then try to justify by claiming they do not use it for 'commercial values'

oh of course they don't, they made enough profits through the wars that comes later.

Should the United States reduce its interference in other countries?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you