So you agree that we cannot produce 100% of our domestic oil needs?
my view on u s use of military force, do you agree?
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
So you agree that we cannot produce 100% of our domestic oil needs?
is this an opinion or do you have link(s)?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
No. My position is that only American citizens or subjects deserve American support. If you want our help, you have to give up your country to us. And none of this self governing colony crap. We appoint the government and you live with it. You adopt our laws, our regulations, our taxes, and our customs. If you don't want to pay that price, don't ask us for help. Solve your own damn problems. As for alliances, we shouldn't have any.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Well and their pesky Parliament. Hey didn't we throw a war for that? Whoops that would have been more their king. Seems for the most part, their executive agrees. Go figure.
This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (February 2011)
the above is from the header of the link.
i will grant that the u s definitely has a history of imperialism, however, gwb's efforts along those lines has been a complete failure and bho does not seem to be interested in continuing the imperialistic course while u s corporations and various foreign corporations are definitely pursuing the imperialistic course (not to mention china). however, imperialism via military force is too expensive and likely to fail, while economic imperialism is dependent on the stability of the given nation's government. of course bribing the current government's military can work quite well...if they are willing to fight foreign equipped rebels. sometimes it is cheaper for a corporation to ally with the rebels...
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Then don't ask for our help. The idea behind my stance is that we stay OUT of other nations problems.
Entangling Alliances
Alliances, we had always felt, were not our sort of thing. They would involve us in obscure quarrels and sordid rivalries which were none of our concern. They seemed to be both undesirable and unnecessary in view of our special geographic and political circumstances.
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
It became more than a policy; it became an expression of a national point of view about ourselves and our place in the world, a view which contrasted the simple virtues of our Republic with the subtle and complex qualities (some said corruptions) of Europe. From 1789 until the Second World War, excepting only our relationship with Panama, the United States refused to enter into treaties of alliance with anyone. In the 25 years since the end of the war, however, in a dramatic reversal of national policy, we have allied ourselves with half the world.
Was this wise? There has been a growing national sense of unease about the extent of our commitments, and more than a suspicion that we were imprudent to disregard the counsel of those who founded the Republic. There has been a feeling that we may have taken on too much in the way of military obligations abroad, especially in Asia. There has also been a sense of bafflement and frustration in trying to ascertain exactly what these commitments are which have sent our young men into the jungles and bogs of Annam and Tonkin, Laos and Cochin China.
After entering into the multilateral treaty which created the United Nations (the United Nations Charter), the United States negotiated three groups of alliances. The first-the Rio Pact-was contracted with the states of Latin America in 1947. The second-the North Atlantic Treaty-was contracted with the states of Western Europe in 1949. The third was the series of treaties with respect to Asia and the Pacific (including the SEATO treaty) which were contracted in the decade 1950-1960.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24183/david-fromkin/entangling-alliances
worth reading the full article
Alliances, we had always felt, were not our sort of thing. They would involve us in obscure quarrels and sordid rivalries which were none of our concern. They seemed to be both undesirable and unnecessary in view of our special geographic and political circumstances.
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
It became more than a policy; it became an expression of a national point of view about ourselves and our place in the world, a view which contrasted the simple virtues of our Republic with the subtle and complex qualities (some said corruptions) of Europe. From 1789 until the Second World War, excepting only our relationship with Panama, the United States refused to enter into treaties of alliance with anyone. In the 25 years since the end of the war, however, in a dramatic reversal of national policy, we have allied ourselves with half the world.
Was this wise? There has been a growing national sense of unease about the extent of our commitments, and more than a suspicion that we were imprudent to disregard the counsel of those who founded the Republic. There has been a feeling that we may have taken on too much in the way of military obligations abroad, especially in Asia. There has also been a sense of bafflement and frustration in trying to ascertain exactly what these commitments are which have sent our young men into the jungles and bogs of Annam and Tonkin, Laos and Cochin China.
After entering into the multilateral treaty which created the United Nations (the United Nations Charter), the United States negotiated three groups of alliances. The first-the Rio Pact-was contracted with the states of Latin America in 1947. The second-the North Atlantic Treaty-was contracted with the states of Western Europe in 1949. The third was the series of treaties with respect to Asia and the Pacific (including the SEATO treaty) which were contracted in the decade 1950-1960.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24183/david-fromkin/entangling-alliances
worth reading the full article
tekkychick
New member
I think this is just one of those "it depends" questions.
Could intervening in another nation's "internal" problems stop future problems for us in the future?
Is whatever happening just so heartbreaking that we have to intervene? Of course, we don't always do it(sigh) - ie the plight of the Jews isn't what got us to declare war against Germany in WWII and we didn't stop the Rwanda genocide
And are you including humanitarian aid? ie setting up refugee camps outside the country for non-combatants. Of course, sometimes this backfires and prolongs the battles
So it's "it depends".... and unfortunately, we often don't learn if we did the "right" or "wrong" thing till well after we intervene or don't intervene.
With Syria - I have few problems with us taking out a few of Assad's palaces or military strongholds through a few missile strikes if he did use chemical weapons. But I have a problem with us doing more.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
We didn't declare anything on Germany. They declared war on us.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
tekkychick
New member
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
No it's not. We have absolutely no obligation to a single human being who isn't an American citizen. My answer wouldn't change if there was a dictator slaughtering every single human being on the planet outside of our borders.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
No, it's not semantics. Declarations of war are a pretty big deal. If they hadn't declared war, we would not be fighting Germany. The alliances of the Axis were defensive in nature and a war against Japan would not have required German intervention.
you are correct when you say it depends. too often the u s and other nations have intervened only to discover that they have made things worse not better and usually for the 'best' of reasons from their point of view. frequently, when we intervene and get rid of a dictatorship, the 'people' just want us to leave so they can start doing things their way, even if there are several groups that have different opinions about what the right way is and so starts a civil war...