The Role of the US in Foreign Countries

After numerous recent debates with my classmates and friends, one issue has always popped up and has never come to a conclusion.

And that issue is the US's role in foreign and how it should be done. I was heavily on the side that as the US is the only superpower today, it should lead roles in helping other countries like Libya and Iraq.

I find that Iraq and Libya were both committing genocide of their own people and various human's right violations, and not to mention crazed dictators who were mad with power and oil. I think it is absolutely necessary to eradicate these leaders and seeing that America is the one country who has the balls to do it, should do it.

Many of my friends sided against me, saying that with money concerns and domestic issues are more important than foreign countries and that foreign countries should duke it out themselves. They find that Iraq was a waste of money and troops and that we should have not invaded. And as for Libya, they believe we should take the sidelines and have our allies fight.

So it comes down to this. Should the United States of America have an aggressive role to combat crazed dictatorships that violently murder their own nationals, or should be sit in the bleachers and hope over countries fulfill our role.

A balance.

The US was too aggressive in Iraq, and is being (slightly) too passive in Libya. We need to lead the way for other countries, but not drag them along.

I think that we are being really too passive in Libya. We needed to go in there and maybe not have troops on the ground but at least train and arm the rebels, and provide air support. We shouldn't just hand over control of the operation like we have. America has the power to do some good so it should.

tiny tim wrote:I think that we are being really too passive in Libya. We needed to go in there and maybe not have troops on the ground but at least train and arm the rebels, and provide air support. We shouldn't just hand over control of the operation like we have. America has the power to do some good so it should.

I mean "we" as in the West/world overall. NATO, EU, US, UN, all those fancy acronyms.

I think the only thing we need to do is perhaps train the rebels and definitely put marines and/or counter-snipers in Misrata.

We [the US] aren't the only superpower... we're just the only one with enough balls to worry about someone other than ourselves. It's one thing to war against a country just because we don't agree with their leader, but it's another to free a people who are being oppressed and slaughtered by a tyrant.

As for Iraq, I always find it funny how so many liberals insist that it was a horrible war and should never have happened. They often make claims that Bush Jr was just trying to "follow in his daddy's footsteps."

After the Gulf War - which was entirely necessary for both America's and Kuwait's best interests - Bush Sr. made the decision to pull out and not peruse a counter-assault on Iraq. This decision was extremely unpopular and cost him and his party the next election, but he thought it was the right thing to do.

When the War in Iraq began, it was in response to claims of WMDs. Although the UN's investigation concluded that Iraq was not pursuing or in possession of WMDs, their compliance was given only through barred teeth and they openly announced intent on WMD research as soon as the Gulf War sanctions were lifted. Given Sadam's abusive regime, alleged ties with Al Queda (you know... the guys who destroyed the world trade centers?), intent to make WMDs, and strong opposition from both the American people and Iraqi people, the invasion was not at all unwarranted for. In fact, it was highly popular at the time.

After the war, however, withdrawal was slower than anticipated and democrats used this against Bush and the republicans. It gave Bush Jr the unfair war-monger image that he has today. Don't you just love politics?

By the US do you mean the UN security council as well?

I've never seen a single thing about iraq or any of these countries wanting to do nuclear weapons. They are always wanting nuclear technology, meaning reactors, to help get them out of being a third world country, which should be allowed, maybe put some small staff employed by the US to keep tabs on it, but nothing else. Instead we aren't letting Iran build a nuclear power plant.

and the Iraq genocide thing isn't too applicable, seeing as the 'genocide' they like to talk about had occurred over 8 years before the war started.

We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.

KristallNacht wrote:We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.

And how many innocent people should we let die? How many massacres should be carried out? How many brutal dictatorships should be allowed to suppress their people?

as many as it takes. not everyone sees life the same way you do.

you need to understand that, as unfortunate as it is, not everyone is born equal. Us interfering isn't going to change that. It's more likely to put the US closer to not existing anymore.

KristallNacht wrote:I've never seen a single thing about iraq or any of these countries wanting to do nuclear weapons.

Common misconception: We went to war with Iraq over the possibility of nuclear weapons.

Fact: We justified the war with Iraq because we believed that they had restarted or not fully stopped their production of chemical and biological weapons. There were discrepancies in the reported dissolution of the Iraqi chemical and biological weapon programs, and intelligence apparently led us to believe that Saddam did indeed have such weapons. In fact, many of his own generals believed he had these weapons. In the opening moves of the war. Iraqi troops were deployed with gas masks, for Christ's sake.

Nukes aren't the only WMDs out there, guys. ;)

KristallNacht wrote:They are always wanting nuclear technology, meaning reactors, to help get them out of being a third world country, which should be allowed, maybe put some small staff employed by the US to keep tabs on it, but nothing else. Instead we aren't letting Iran build a nuclear power plant.

Have you ever been to the Middle East? Most of the nations along the Persian Gulf have more oil than they know what to do with. They do not have an energy problem, and so nuclear power would not solve their problems. Arguably, those nations that are Third World are so because of the oppressive regimes, not any energy problems.

Let's take Iran for example, since they're so bent on nuclear power. Gas prices quadrupled last December. Quadrupled to about $1.44 (that's USD). Prior to that, a gallon of gas in Iran cost $0.38. THIRTY-EIGHT CENTS! No, energy is not the problem. Furthermore, Iran does not want to build just any nuclear reactor. They insist on a heavy water reactor, the kind much more often used to produce weaponized nuclear material than the light water alternative.

KristallNacht wrote:and the Iraq genocide thing isn't too applicable, seeing as the 'genocide' they like to talk about had occurred over 8 years before the war started.

Better late than never.

KristallNacht wrote:We should have no interaction with any country in its own civil wars. They need work their country out to a point thats best for them. Us deciding which side is right, and then making the end result match what we think is right, isn't allowing the country to actually evolve. The only thing we need to do in those situations is provide safety for foreign nationals within the country.

There exist certain ethical tenets that it is not unreasonable to impose on all nations. In the event that there is a civil war in which one side is clearly supporting these tenets and the other side is clearly opposing them, I see nothing wrong with getting involved. I am not educated enough on the whole Libya issue to determine whether or not this would be the case, but your view of isolationism is hardly one that would benefit the US.

KristallNacht wrote:as many as it takes. not everyone sees life the same way you do.

you need to understand that, as unfortunate as it is, not everyone is born equal. Us interfering isn't going to change that. It's more likely to put the US closer to not existing anymore.

While I do subscribe to the "we can't save everyone" philosophy, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't save as many as we can. If we have the capability to save the innocent, we should.

While I am not against the US playing an active role in the world(to an extent), I do believe that at least some of the money used to fund all of those operations could be better spent on domestic projects.

Heh, most of my friends and a damn lot of the people I know in general has this opinion: The US feels like it's the world's police. and it has to intervene with and bother with everything that they think doesn't seem like their view.

We should intact the prime directive.

Also with Libya, we shot 104 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the span of 24 hours, half our annual stockpile, we've already spent a HUGE amount of finances there.

What should we do? what are we obliged to do as the US? Well, since the Arab world wont be satisfied with anything we do (which is why they allowed us to intervene while doing absolutely nothing themselves), and since in all likelihood, this regime change is likely to change nothing in the coming years, what are we doing?

The two choices don't cover overlaps or other possibilities, therefore, I will not cast a vote as I believe that while the US should help nations, they should seek approval on certain issues from other nations that aren't just in Europe (I fully acknowledge that the Arab League support the No-Fly zone being enacted over Libya) so we don't look like a "bully", and I don't think we should arm the rebels in Libya.

a civil war is a personal matter for a country, and they need to be able to handle it themselves. The MOST we should do, is provide security for those not wanting to take part, but happen to be forced into the area until conflict slows, but we shouldn't even do that much.

There is zero benefit to us who wins, and our interaction and support for one side without actually invading full on can be more harmful than good. There isn't even, normally, too much benefit to the country based on who wins, at least not from anything that can be predicted.

in most of these countries, no matter what we do, they end up in the same leadership style as existed before. They do the 'democratic' thing for a while, and then the shit starts all over again.