5 ms·

Happy 4th of July to you, too. America is not obligated to topple every dictator around the world. You sound exactly like the same people who would angrily cri

Happy 4th of July to you, too. America is not obligated to topple every dictator around the world. You sound exactly like the same people who would angrily criticize them for doing so even if they did and accuse them of imperialism. You seriously cannot win. Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? | Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention. We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and extremely unwise. | And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. There have been daily reports on CNN, MSNBC, and probably even Fox. There are stories on ABC, NBC, CBS, and 60 Minutes. What do more do you expect? Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom?

Jach 15y ago
I think you're attacking a straw man. I can't speak for dean but I thought his comment was pretty much: people seem to think it's America's duty to police the world, and America does a half-assed hypocritical job at it. > Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? I hate questions like this because it treats freedom as a 1-bit entity when it has many dimensions. > We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and ignorant. I don't think he wants to go to war with Syria but the lack of government denouncement and threats appears hypocritical given our other actions. Did you make this exact same argument before we started bombing Libya? It sounds like a counting argument. > What do more do you expect? Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military. It seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.
- diogenescynic 15y ago
  I was more than fair with dean:...they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq..they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history. | Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran? | seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me. They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.
  - Jach 15y ago
    I don't think there's a singular reason for the Iraqi invasion, but that's another topic. If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action. Historically Syria has backed down from such threats. I'm much more ambivalent about the actions in Libya compared to Iraq or Afghanistan considering we aren't using any ground troops (apart from when a pilot rescue is needed), I don't see why we would necessarily need ground troops in Syria either, especially if we're just starting out with bomb threats. Edit: a little Googling suggests that a simple embargo on their oil exports (which make up a huge portion of their revenue), or damage to those facilities, or using Lebanon's current weakness, might be enough.
    - diogenescynic 15y ago
      | If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action Why is it our obligation and how are we going to afford a 4th war in a Muslim country (financially and politically)? You're feeding all the anti-American rhetoric by giving them what they want--acting like an imperialist. | a simple embargo on their oil exports Totally, a simple embargo. But we don't use/buy Libyan oil. Are you starting to see why it's so hard to do anything? We have no/negligible leverage/influence in Syria. We are already militarily over-extended. We cannot afford it financially. Politically it would be disaster for the US to attack another Muslim country and it would look like another war for oil. There are no good options. Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war_n_845039.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war... and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.
AltIvan 15y ago
"Defend freedom" Are you serious? America does not attack Libya to defend freedom; is bussines: is for stability. The lack of it is extremly harmful for all the american corporations in the middle east (Those about oil... and other few natural resources)
jstevens85 15y ago
|Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? Examples of the US defending freedom. 1973 Chilean coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US supports a coup of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende who is replaced by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chile lived under a military dictatorship until 1990. Pinochet was responsible for the death and torture of tens of thousands of Chileans. 1953 Iranian coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US overthrows the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and have him replaced with the Shah of Iran, who acts as a proxy for US interests and uses the Iranian Intelligence Agency to crush political opposition. US support of Saudi Arabia Saudia Arabia is an absolute monarchy with no political parties or elections. It was rated in the Economists 2010 Democracy Index to be the seventh most authoritarian country in the world, and ranked higher than both Iran and Libya. The Saudia Arabian monarchy has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the US in exchange for military weaponry and the building of military infrastructure. Recently, Obama approved the biggest arms sale in US history, $60.5 billion in arms sold to Saudia Arabia. Now, I'm getting a bit tired, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail for the rest, but you can look into US support for King Abdullah in Jordan, US support of Murbarak in Egypt, US support for Suharto in Indonesia, the list goes on. Sometimes the US supports democratic governments, often they support brutal tyrannical dictators. Generally it has to do with whether or not the policies of theses countries are in alignment with US economic interests.
- diogenescynic 15y ago
  You didn't answer the question: if the US is so bad--who is better? WW I/II, Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo, among others were all conveniently left out. All your examples are from 2-3 generations ago. Get real, all countries make compromises with their philosophies/ideologies when it comes to national interest. What country has done better? Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars. Now here are some facts: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). (Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average) * The United States has always been the world's largest donor, except in the mid-1990s when Japan briefly topped the list. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox-idUSTRE6054DT20100106 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox... This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original question.
wnight 15y ago
> America is not obligated to topple every dictator around the world. Just the ones you installed and supported. > You sound exactly like the same people who would angrily criticize them for doing so even if they did and accuse them of imperialism. Depends. Did they topple the dictator to install a more favorable one, or because they were horrified at the abuses, came at the people's request, and left peacefully after? Intent has a lot to do with it and we're not stupid. We see your (country's) tricks. It'll take a lot of honest work to erase your legacy of political manipulation.

Jach 15y ago

I think you're attacking a straw man. I can't speak for dean but I thought his comment was pretty much: people seem to think it's America's duty to police the world, and America does a half-assed hypocritical job at it. > Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? I hate questions like this because it treats freedom as a 1-bit entity when it has many dimensions. > We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and ignorant. I don't think he wants to go to war with Syria but the lack of government denouncement and threats appears hypocritical given our other actions. Did you make this exact same argument before we started bombing Libya? It sounds like a counting argument. > What do more do you expect? Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military. It seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.

diogenescynic 15y ago
I was more than fair with dean:...they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq..they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history. | Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran? | seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me. They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.
- Jach 15y ago
  I don't think there's a singular reason for the Iraqi invasion, but that's another topic. If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action. Historically Syria has backed down from such threats. I'm much more ambivalent about the actions in Libya compared to Iraq or Afghanistan considering we aren't using any ground troops (apart from when a pilot rescue is needed), I don't see why we would necessarily need ground troops in Syria either, especially if we're just starting out with bomb threats. Edit: a little Googling suggests that a simple embargo on their oil exports (which make up a huge portion of their revenue), or damage to those facilities, or using Lebanon's current weakness, might be enough.
  - diogenescynic 15y ago
    | If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action Why is it our obligation and how are we going to afford a 4th war in a Muslim country (financially and politically)? You're feeding all the anti-American rhetoric by giving them what they want--acting like an imperialist. | a simple embargo on their oil exports Totally, a simple embargo. But we don't use/buy Libyan oil. Are you starting to see why it's so hard to do anything? We have no/negligible leverage/influence in Syria. We are already militarily over-extended. We cannot afford it financially. Politically it would be disaster for the US to attack another Muslim country and it would look like another war for oil. There are no good options. Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war_n_845039.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war... and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.

AltIvan 15y ago

"Defend freedom" Are you serious? America does not attack Libya to defend freedom; is bussines: is for stability. The lack of it is extremly harmful for all the american corporations in the middle east (Those about oil... and other few natural resources)

jstevens85 15y ago

|Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? Examples of the US defending freedom. 1973 Chilean coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US supports a coup of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende who is replaced by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chile lived under a military dictatorship until 1990. Pinochet was responsible for the death and torture of tens of thousands of Chileans. 1953 Iranian coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US overthrows the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and have him replaced with the Shah of Iran, who acts as a proxy for US interests and uses the Iranian Intelligence Agency to crush political opposition. US support of Saudi Arabia Saudia Arabia is an absolute monarchy with no political parties or elections. It was rated in the Economists 2010 Democracy Index to be the seventh most authoritarian country in the world, and ranked higher than both Iran and Libya. The Saudia Arabian monarchy has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the US in exchange for military weaponry and the building of military infrastructure. Recently, Obama approved the biggest arms sale in US history, $60.5 billion in arms sold to Saudia Arabia. Now, I'm getting a bit tired, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail for the rest, but you can look into US support for King Abdullah in Jordan, US support of Murbarak in Egypt, US support for Suharto in Indonesia, the list goes on. Sometimes the US supports democratic governments, often they support brutal tyrannical dictators. Generally it has to do with whether or not the policies of theses countries are in alignment with US economic interests.

diogenescynic 15y ago
You didn't answer the question: if the US is so bad--who is better? WW I/II, Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo, among others were all conveniently left out. All your examples are from 2-3 generations ago. Get real, all countries make compromises with their philosophies/ideologies when it comes to national interest. What country has done better? Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars. Now here are some facts: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). (Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average) * The United States has always been the world's largest donor, except in the mid-1990s when Japan briefly topped the list. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox-idUSTRE6054DT20100106 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox... This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original question.

wnight 15y ago

> America is not obligated to topple every dictator around the world. Just the ones you installed and supported. > You sound exactly like the same people who would angrily criticize them for doing so even if they did and accuse them of imperialism. Depends. Did they topple the dictator to install a more favorable one, or because they were horrified at the abuses, came at the people's request, and left peacefully after? Intent has a lot to do with it and we're not stupid. We see your (country's) tricks. It'll take a lot of honest work to erase your legacy of political manipulation.