Members | Sign In
Forum > Open Forum
avatar

getting priorities straight

posted Dec 09, 2010 15:21:48 by NicholasGoathoof
American isolationism. There is no reason for the American government to waste tax-payer money and resources on a country far far away, when there are still countless problems we are dealing with within our own nation. If a privately, non-government, owned charity wishes to raise and send funds, then no harm no foul. However, if the government wishes to spend my money, your money, the country's money on a problem that has no relation to our own soil, then it is strictly uncalled for. America has already meddled into too many other countries' problems, always trying to be the super hero. It needs to stop.
page   1
11 replies
avatar
MeghanThomas said Dec 09, 2010 16:53:21
....I agree with you in general. However, although America has their own problems that we should be concentrating on, there are other countries in desperate need of our help! As human beings, we should be helping other human beings and if we have the resources to do so, then how could we just sit back and watch other countries fall apart? I would rather be the superhero than the accomplice.
avatar
NicholasGoathoof said Dec 11, 2010 02:11:58
America has no responsibility to any other nation, save for itself. If you consider yourself an accomplice for not reacting, then that is a personal belief. However, I don't feel the same way. As I said, non-governmentally funded projects and charities can help/send aid if they wish, but to use the general public's tax-payer money for foreign aid, especially this cause, is very irresponsible in my opinion. Maybe, just maybe, if America had NO problems, and there was a vote amongst the public, and they chose to send military aid, then I would have to support. However, this is so far from the truth. This nation is experiencing a horrendous economic state, with the possibility of getting worse. Our school system is horrendous for a 1st world country like our own. Our deficit is undeniably bad. Immigration is becoming more and more relevant and prevalent. The list goes on. There is no reason to ignore problems concerning our own nation just to help another country through its own personal trials.
avatar
lovenicky said Dec 11, 2010 18:21:34
Nicholas- I understand your point, however in order for this to be a valid point the United States needs to pull out of other countries too. This is probably the best cause to be involved in, if we are going to be in other countries. For this to be a useful idea today, we would need to pull out of the countries we're in for basically no reason. We have troops in too many countries in which we are doing no good and have no place being in. In addition, the fact that we are a part of the UN gives us a social responsibility to get involved in certain causes, genocide being among them.
avatar
NicholasGoathoof said Dec 11, 2010 18:39:22
I absolutely agree that we have no place in many of the countries we currently reside in. But pulling out of those countries can't happen over night, at least not with the current leadership we have now, or pretty much any possible leadership in the future. This is absolutely the WORST cause to be involved in. Doing what's 'morally' right, especially with another nation, does not necessarily lead to prosperity. At least in the middle east, however wrong I believe it may have been, there was evidence to support that WMD could have existed. There is no threat to our soil by what is going on/what has gone on in Africa, so there is no reason to intervene. Being part of the UN is exactly that, a PART. If the UN collectively agreed to do something, then it would be more likely and reasonable to take action. However to play self-righteous super hero and charge full speed ahead, alone, is reckless and wasteful. The US's involvement in the UN should be minimal as well. There is no profit or no real benefit for AMERICA to help Africa. A country needs to better itself, that's it. At least in the Middle East there is oil, something we need and use. I can't think of anything off the top of my head which Africa has to offer us that is substantial enough to risk lives for.
avatar
lovenicky said Dec 11, 2010 19:16:09
I agree that Africa should be helped by charities, however if we are going to be involved in basically everything, this is the BEST thing to be involved in. It helps other humans to stay ALIVE. Lives are MUCH more important than the possibility of WMDs maybe being in the middle east. (Why do we get to control that anyway? Are we big brother? No. But, that's a completely different topic.)
avatar
NicholasGoathoof said Dec 11, 2010 19:32:27
Human life in another country is not relevant to us, therefore, not a top priority. If you want to say that it is relevant because it reflects on our moral standing in the eyes of the world, then all I can say is that that's a personal choice you make. Moral standing of the US as seen by the rest of the world is unimportant and irrelevant. The US needs to be viewed as strong, feared, and respected, some if not all of which we are lacking at this point. Going into Africa does nothing for the previously stated attributes, except looking like a nosy pest again, always meddling in other countries' business. How can WMD's not be important? It threatens OUR existence. Africa and everything going on in it does not(except when there was evidence that Saddam was looking for tools to pursue WMD in Africa, but now that threat is gone afaik). (We control who has WMD's because we don't want to die? Big Brother is about surveilling and watching our own citizens, i.e. the patriot act. Doing it to another country, especially one known for terrorism is not unwarranted, so how would it be Big Brother?) If human lives are important how can WMD be any less than a top priority?
avatar
lewdtood said Dec 11, 2010 19:55:11
So0 human life is not important unless they live in the US of A. How arrogant. No wonder were losing ground in world opinion. Thank God you weren't running things in WWII. Do not fret, the world knows we are strong, and much of the globe fears us. The problem is respect is on the downside. Fear is easy to overcome, and when it is, violence usually follows. Respect leads to dialogue. Do you know why people fight wars? 2 reasons: Greed and Hunger. See what happens if Africa gets too hungry. As for WMD's and our controlling them. We do not control them. Moreover, applying your logic ends in catastrophe. The US of A We has the most WMD, and we have shown we are not afraid to employ them. By your logic, to protect their people, every other country should be attacking us so they can control the WMD and protect their people.
avatar
lovenicky said Dec 11, 2010 20:03:50
Big brother doesn't suit you? How about world cop? We should not be in charge of everyone's weapons, because once we lose the power we have, by our logic, it is the next power country's responsibility to control our possible WMDs. We need to be aware of the way the world sees us in every aspect, because global relations are of the utmost importance to our future.
avatar
NicholasGoathoof said Dec 11, 2010 21:14:18
1)WWII wasn't run the most efficiently. We are strong? The Terrorists don't think we are strong, and neither do many others. We are weak with our bend-over foreign relations, constantly apologizing for things we don't need to feel bad about. We are weak with our poor politically correct stance on so many issues. Africa has no potential capability to attack the US, so why should we worry even if they do get too hungry? Africa is not a major threat, according to our own government. Every other country should be attacking us? When did I ever say we should attack anyone or people should attack us? If a nation has to attack another nation to protect their own, then so be it. As a world super power it is our job to make sure we have the most weapons and we are the strongest. Naturally, it should be every other nations' desire to do and be the same. However, we're already at that point, and it is the best policy to stay in that position. Your straw man arguments are really not appreciated.

2)I agree we should not be the world police, however, if a nation that is know to support/harbor/fund terrorsits is believed to be in reach of nuclear weapons it is most definitely something we need to look into. If a country does surpass us in power, and feels we are a threat, then obviously they would wish to monitor and control us. It is the nature of power and control. You are oversimplifying what I'm saying. I'm not saying we need to worry about every nation's possibility for nuclear weapons. Should we worry about France, or Germany, or Canada? No. But countries with terrorist-relations do need to be monitored, and obviously I, and the US, are not the only ones who think this. "We need to be aware of the way the world sees us in every aspect, because global relations are of the utmost importance to our future." This is absolutely untrue in my opinion. Walking on eggshells worrying about what people across the globe think only puts road blocks in the way of progress and success.
[Last edited Dec 11, 2010 21:16:05]
avatar
lewdtood said Dec 16, 2010 05:54:15
Nicholas, you missed the point with respect to my comment about WWII. You previously stated, "Human life in another country is not relevant to us..." I retorted, "Thank God you weren't running things in WWII." So you would have understood my comment I guess I should have said, "The Jewish people Thank God you weren't running things in WWII." Now, turn off FOX news and get your pen and paper out.

You need to work on your arguments. I am going to use quotes from your very few postings to demonstrate a little of what I mean. First, know your history. You stated, "Immigration is becoming more and more relevant and prevalent." No it isn't. Go read your history. Is immigration any more relevant and prevalent now than when people complained about the Irish immigrants? Nope. How about when they were complaining about the Southern European immigrants? Nope. the boat people? Nope. Blaming the newest immigrants for our woes has been going on for well over 100 years. (And they say baseball is our national past time)

Next, you are quick to point out that others should not think their beliefs are yours. However, when, you are making statements, you have no problem projecting your beliefs and desires on others as evidenced by the following statement: "However, if the government wishes to spend my money, your money, the country's money on a problem that has no relation to our own soil, then it is strictly uncalled for." You presume to tell me how I want the government to spend (or not to spend) my money.

NOW FOR SOME REAL FUN. Do you have a split personality? In the same paragraph, you stated, "We are strong? The Terrorists don't think we are strong, and neither do many others. We are weak with our bend-over foreign relations, constantly apologizing for things we don't need to feel bad about. We are weak with our poor politically correct stance on so many issues...As a world super power it is our job to make sure we have the most weapons and we are the strongest." Nicholas, either we are strong or we are not. Pick a side.

Know your history, part two: You stated, "Africa has no potential capability to attack the US..." Really? You really believe that? Let me burst your balloon. Let's start with Libya, the 4th largest nation in Africa. The CIA alleged Libya was involved in the Berlin discothèque terrorist bombing that killed two American servicemen. The US response, we bombed targets near Tripoli and Benghazi and killed amongst others. If we didn't see Africa as a potential threat, why bomb it when the terrorist attack took place in Germany. Libya was also connected to the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. But enough of Libya. Let's move on to the Sudan, the largest country in Africa. The judicial branch of the United States government found the Sudanese government liable for the bombing of the USS Cole. This means the US government found an African nation responsible for a direct attack on a US military vessel. Finally, since Al-Qaeda leaders have gone underground, where do you see heightened Al-Qaeda activity? Somalia and Yemen. Where is Somalia? Africa.

Know your history part III: So you don't think we need to worry about Germany, France, and Canada having nuclear weapons. I don't think Germany was on our side in WWI and WWII. Also in the bombing of Libya discussed above, France did not let us fly through their airspace. We "inadvertently" bombed their embassy. They may harbor a grudge. Canadians may want revenge for the Southpark movie and series, eh. Remember, your friends of today may not be your friends tomorrow.

You failed why I stated that if countries employed your logic they should attack us (so they could control the WMD and protect their people). I do not blame you for failing to see how your logic would lead to this. After all, you went to school in the American school system which you described as "horrendous."
avatar
lewdtood said Dec 16, 2010 06:02:53
I failed to complete a sentence in the 3rd to thee last paragraph above. The sentence "The US response, we bombed targets near Tripoli and Benghazi and killed amongst others." should have been "The US response, we bombed targets near Tripoli and Benghazi and killed amongst others, Muammar al-Gaddafi's two-year-old daughter."

Also the 1st sentence of the last paragraph was supposed to be "You failed to understand why I stated that if countries employed your logic they should attack us (so they could control the WMD and protect their people).

Sorry, guess I should proofread before hitting Reply.
Login below to reply: