Why does America get involved in other countries problems..

[ForeverHeat]

.. without actually understanding the situation? And I'm not an american hater or anything, I just think its something that needs to be asked. Whenever there is a conflict in a country, or between two countries, America just runs in either -

- Helps the guy thats losing, to make themselves look better to the rest of the world.

- Help the enemies of someone they have been trying to get rid of for awhile (e.g. gaddafi), while simultaneously making this person and their government look as bad as possible.

- Feed the american people with fears and lies until the people insist they go over there and stop these evil guys.

- Get involved without actually distinguising between the sides and what each stands for.

- Gets involved in other peoples fights when the needs of americans are right in front of them and being ignored.

All of the reasons above are up for discussion, btw, if you guys want to disagree. This isn't a patriotism thing, since the english government is just as bad.

[-p.tiddy-]

many reasons...both good and bad


I am reminded of an article that I read a long time ago about why some of the people of Iraq hate Americans for removing Saddam, and to my surprise one of the major reasons was because WE DIDN'T COME SOON ENOUGH!...They felt as though we just sat back and did nothing for too long.

A lot of people have the misconspetion that our help is never wanted...not true at all

[niko]

.. without actually understanding the situation? And I'm not an american hater or anything, I just think its something that needs to be asked. Whenever there is a conflict in a country, or between two countries, America just runs in either -

- Helps the guy thats losing, to make themselves look better to the rest of the world.

- Help the enemies of someone they have been trying to get rid of for awhile (e.g. gaddafi), while simultaneously making this person and their government look as bad as possible.

- Feed the american people with fears and lies until the people insist they go over there and stop these evil guys.

- Get involved without actually distinguising between the sides and what each stands for.

- Gets involved in other peoples fights when the needs of americans are right in front of them and being ignored.

All of the reasons above are up for discussion, btw, if you guys want to disagree. This isn't a patriotism thing, since the english government is just as bad.

Who is good? Which countries that are large don't get involved? I'm sure some smaller don't, but bigger?

[Nick Young]

If America gets involved, it's not their business, everyone whines and bitches.

If America doesn't get involved, everyone whines and moans because it is our job to protect the world.
(See sudan, Kony, and other situations like that)


No matter what we do, we lose, and people will whine and moan.

Dumbasses from shitty countries just like to moan about America when they got nothing better to do.

[Godzuki]

because we supposedly represent democracy, and push for that cause all over the world. there is this belief that democracy deters extremism/fundamentalists, altho i don't know how they came up with that idea or why nobody questions it since it didn't help our cause in Pakistan, or even Egypts recent vote.

the other reason is we're asked/expected to by the world. we're like every countries parent when the shit hits the fan, we're the ones they ask to help them if they're being oppressed. obviously we're the main superpower in the world today, so everyone asks/expects of us a lot more than any other country.

and personally i don't agree with us getting involved in most things we do, sad thing is both main parties politicians push us to. Republicans are worse tho, between Mccain wanting us to get involved in every issue around the world, and the GOP guilt trip now that Democrats aren't friends of Israel, where they seem itching to want us to go to war with Iran, they're easily the war party. its funny how people turn it on to Obama for inheriting the wars they started too, its just such propaganda and BS spinning/weaving. a war monger does not inherit wars, they start them, and its so stupid to me how people can't see that distinction :facepalm

anyways, i think more often than not we're criticized too much from foreigners. they think we're just attacking people or getting involved in stuff for no reason when in reality we're being asked/expected to....

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Countries are like women, they dont know what they want.. they just know something is wrong and someone needs to fix it.

[knickballer]

http://0.tqn.com/d/beginnersinvest/1/0/0/L/saving-money-tips-stacks-of-dollars-cash.jpg

[Timmeh]

Why does America get involved? Because they get asked to get involved. Whether its the UN, NATO, or individual countries (See the most recent incident with Turkey and Syria where Syria shot down a Turkish jet. Turkey literally got Hillary Clinton on the phone and told her to do something about it. NATO was supposed to meet today, I think.)

[TheSilentKiller]

If America gets involved, it's not their business, everyone whines and bitches.

If America doesn't get involved, everyone whines and moans because it is our job to protect the world.
(See sudan, Kony, and other situations like that)


No matter what we do, we lose, and people will whine and moan.

Dumbasses from shitty countries just like to moan about America when they got nothing better to do.

Spot on :applause:

[dunksby]

Americans, never underestimate how clueless they are :roll:

[rufuspaul]

Nick Young has a valid point. We've made some blunders but we're always expected to come to the rescue (Haiti, Japan, etc.). Do we tend to spend the most resources where our interests are most at stake? Of course. And so does any other country with any resources.

[Godzuki]

Americans, never underestimate how clueless they are :roll:


about what? i'd love for you to be more specific but i'm assuming you're being cryptic on purpose so you wouldn't have to be held accountable to knowing what you're talking about :facepalm

[millwad]

because we supposedly represent democracy, and push for that cause all over the world.

WE?
You're korean..:facepalm

[Nick Young]

Nick Young has a valid point. We've made some blunders but we're always expected to come to the rescue (Haiti, Japan, etc.). Do we tend to spend the most resources where our interests are most at stake? Of course. And so does any other country with any resources.
Exactly-if we gave no money to those countries it would be "Why isn't America doing their duty and giving aide to Haiti and Japan?"

Euros just like blaming America for every problem that happens in the world.

[Timmy D for MVP]

We do get involved because we are expected to. This much is true.

However the main reason we get involved is because we have interests everywhere. If something is threatening that interest we'll make a move.

[Godzuki]

WE?
You're korean..:facepalm


and you're a f'n idiot compulsive lying fat ass :facepalm

PS born and raised in America goes a long way fgt

[DuMa]

there are many answers to this question. the most simplistic answer i can give you is because it is mandatory in the constitution to get involved in foreign affairs

[Kornheiser]

http://i.imgur.com/ARj7q.jpg

[Dictator]

WE?
You're korean..:facepalm

:lol :roll: :oldlol: :roll:

[Kobr]

WE?
You're korean..:facepalm

He's a Korean pretending to be a Filipino pretending to be a 6'4'' white American. Or he's a Filipino pretending to be a Korean pretending to be a 6'4'' white American.

Can't remember which. :oldlol:

[Godzuki]

He's a Korean pretending to be a Filipino pretending to be a 6'4'' white American. Or he's a Filipino pretending to be a Korean pretending to be a 6'4'' white American.

Can't remember which. :oldlol:


WOW where/how did all of these blue moon posters just get on ISH? :roll: :roll: :roll:

DFish, Kobr, Osiris, even millwad who has been ghost of recent and coincidentally posts just prior to and after nickyoung again :facepalm

[Nick Young]

WOW where/how did all of these blue moon posters just get on ISH? :roll: :roll: :roll:

DFish, Kobr, Osiris, even millwad who has been ghost of recent and coincidentally posts just prior to and after nickyoung again :facepalm
Obviously, they are all my alts:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[ForeverHeat]

Extra Question -

Which countries has America actually improved???

[Nick Young]

Extra Question -

Which countries has America actually improved???
Kosovo

Japan

Germany

http://www.profilebrand.com/funny-pictures/category/people/753_knife-kid-gtfo.gif

[LJJ]

Extra Question -

Which countries has America actually improved???

I'm pretty happy America decided to help those Brits out a bit and made sure all of western Europe didn't fall to Hitler or Stalin. To be honest, it would have probably all worked out without them, but still.

Then there is Japan, which used to be a horrible country and became an awesome country after America pushed them into the right direction.

[Joshumitsu]

Extra Question -

Which countries has America actually improved???

S. Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, a few others.

[Derka]

I'm pretty happy America decided to help those Brits out a bit and made sure all of western Europe didn't fall to Hitler or Stalin. To be honest, it would have probably all worked out without them, but still.

Then there is Japan, which used to be a horrible country and became an awesome country after America pushed them into the right direction.

Western Europe would have been speaking Russian had we not taken the Western Front.

[ForeverHeat]

S. Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, a few others.

Too young to know about others, but afghanistan no and iraq hell no. Maybe down the line, but not currently. And didn't yall bomb he **** out of Japan? Its doing pretty well now though so i dunno bout that one.

[LJJ]

Western Europe would have been speaking Russian had we not taken the Western Front.

Naw. Fending off the Germanic invasion already took Russia to their limits and Western Europe is just to populous and culturally different for Russia to successfully annex. Look what happened when they tried to annex Finland.

I mean, Russia had the highest number of casualties by far and the highest percentage of casualties by far of any country in the war. Imagine if they had to defeat Germany by themselves, and then had to defeat the British army and the rest of the still largely intact continental European forces. Not happening buddy.

[shlver]

The two main reasons are the US is signatory to multiple global treaties and self interest.

[Joshumitsu]

Too young to know about others, but afghanistan no and iraq hell no. Maybe down the line, but not currently. And didn't yall bomb he **** out of Japan? Its doing pretty well now though so i dunno bout that one.

Average standard of living per person has increased exponentially the past ten-plus years. People have more access to facilities such as hospitals, schools, and transportation. Technology such as cell phones have been introduced and are available to the mass majority of the public. Literacy rates have increased. Life expectancy has increased.

Statistically, the majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want the US and NATO troops to stay. Why? It provides them with protection, job security, and education benefits.

The problem with how the media presents Afghanistan and Iraq is that they only visit the worst parts of these countries. It's like visiting the Detroit and Oakland ghettos with the prior knowledge of the US only being through crime/action films and murder reports. The result would be that this visitor would think of the US as a gigantic gangland.

If you venture outside of the battlefield, you'll find the cities full of culture, art, music, etc. One thing the liberals/leftists in the West don't acknowledge is that places like Afghanistan and Iraq are filled with academics, students, women's rights activists, secularists, democrats, etc. Ironically, these leftists/liberals in Afghanistan and Iraq view the US moreso as freedom fighters than invaders with imperialistic agendas.

To the Afghan/Iraqi people and especially the leftists/democrats/liberals there, it isn't about pushing a Western way of life on them. Instead, it's about providing them with universal human rights. Because if the US leaves, the radical fundamentalist/terrorists will go back to oppressing them.

The main reason I wouldn't support these wars is because we don't have the resources to fight large unconventional wars such as these, especially as we deal with economic woes. Because ethically, even if we entered illegally, the US is actually doing a good thing by helping the people there.



As for Japan? They attacked the US first. While I don't condone war in the first place and though they could've targeted more remote locations, the US had every right to bomb Japan. This becomes even more strategic as a mainland invasion would cost both the US and Japan even more lives and resources.


At the end of the day, however, all these wars and successful nation building are the result of self-interest though. That's neither a good or bad thing as there are both pros and cons to the US's existence.

[Godzuki]

i don't really agree with people saying we're about personal interests so much altho thats an easy/popular answer. despite the overwhelming conspiracy theories that we were after Iraq's oil, we do not have control over it and never will, in fact we haven't benefited at all from it from what i know. i think they're supposed to pay us back for some of the costs of rebuilding with those oil proceeds but that doesn't mean we're making out from it. and we spent billions in Iraq.....even Afghanistan what are we making out on? only thing is chasing terrorists which is what they've said all along. we didn't make out helping Haiti, or Japan either but we have deep pockets to help them and we did....

if anything our politicians/people are too altruistic, and seem more concerned for people in other countries than our well being domestically. paranoia plays a part too which is the strategic element to us staying in Iraq so Iran doesn't influence too much, as well as Syria i guess, but we're spending a lot of money to help some of these countries without getting much in return that i can see.

[shlver]

i don't really agree with people saying we're about personal interests so much altho thats an easy/popular answer. despite the overwhelming conspiracy theories that we were after Iraq's oil, we do not have control over it and never will, in fact we haven't benefited at all from it from what i know. i think they're supposed to pay us back for some of the costs of rebuilding with those oil proceeds but that doesn't mean we're making out from it. and we spent billions in Iraq.....even Afghanistan what are we making out on? only thing is chasing terrorists which is what they've said all along. we didn't make out helping Haiti, or Japan either but we have deep pockets to help them and we did....

if anything our politicians/people are too altruistic, and seem more concerned for people in other countries than our well being domestically. paranoia plays a part too which is the strategic element to us staying in Iraq so Iran doesn't influence too much, as well as Syria i guess, but we're spending a lot of money to help some of these countries without getting much in return that i can see.
Of course there is personal interest. The USA polices the world because it can, it does not mean they have to be fair and impartial. Self interest does not preclude altruism. See Lybia vs Syria.
This goes to my earlier post, the main reason the US is the world's policeman is that if the UN wants anything to be enforced through military action, only the US can make it happen disregarding the small engagements. Other nations are avoiding responsibility, reducing military expenditures, and expecting the US to pick the slack for world peace. Despite this, the US is well within its rights to interpret these obligations in context with their self interest, but if we attribute altruism and moral imperatives then the US should be applying this ideal universally meaning we should help the Haitians, Indonesians, Lybians, etc. and even the syrians. Does US involvement represent these ideals? No. See once again, US involvement in Libya vs Syria

[Godzuki]

Of course there is personal interest. The USA polices the world because it can, it does not mean they have to be fair and impartial. Self interest does not preclude altruism. See Lybia vs Syria.
This goes to my earlier post, the main reason the US is the world's policeman is that if the UN wants anything to be enforced through military action, only the US can make it happen disregarding the small engagements. Other nations are avoiding responsibility, reducing military expenditures, and expecting the US to pick the slack for world peace. Despite this, the US is well within its rights to interpret these obligations in context with their self interest, but if we attribute altruism and moral imperatives then the US should be applying this ideal universally meaning we should help the Haitians, Indonesians, Lybians, etc. and even the syrians. Does US involvement represent these ideals? No. See once again, US involvement in Libya vs Syria


i agree with what you said about the UN and how we operate when they fail at resolving issues, but i think the circumstances surrounding Libya were very different than the ones surrounding Syria. we didn't even take the forefront in regards to Libya, if anything we helped other countries that have helped us who had stakes in libya(france?). In regards to Syria its really Russia/China holding us back, and we've been on the forefront of criticizing them for it. altho i do agree our altruism and moral standards aren't universal but all circumstances regarding our help are very different so its not like it can/should be looked at in that way.

[sick_brah07]

Kosovo
Japan

Germany

http://www.profilebrand.com/funny-pictures/category/people/753_knife-kid-gtfo.gif


you have no idea man

[shlver]

i agree with what you said about the UN and how we operate when they fail at resolving issues, but i think the circumstances surrounding Libya were very different than the ones surrounding Syria. we didn't even take the forefront in regards to Libya, if anything we helped other countries that have helped us who had stakes in libya(france?). In regards to Syria its really Russia/China holding us back, and we've been on the forefront of criticizing them for it. altho i do agree our altruism and moral standards aren't universal but all circumstances regarding our help are very different so its not like it can/should be looked at in that way.
No, Obama tried to get out of the lead role but he couldn't resulting in the US contributing the most funds towards the mission. No it's not just Russia and China. Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but syria has no oil. It's in the middle of the Islamic extremist movement in the middle east meaning it can relocate its military assets to other arab countries. We would even rope in a war with Iran and Hezbollah. Lybia was a civil war, Syria wasn't.

[RidonKs]

No, Obama tried to get out of the lead role but he couldn't resulting in the US contributing the most funds towards the mission. No it's not just Russia and China. Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but syria has no oil. It's in the middle of the Islamic extremist movement in the middle east meaning it can relocate its military assets to other arab countries. We would even rope in a war with Iran and Hezbollah. Lybia was a civil war, Syria wasn't.
i'd research syria a wee bit more if you're convinced libya was infighting and syria wasn't. libya was maybe more conveniently divided to allow the west to intervene on behalf of the 'revolutionaries' but syria has as much sectarian malcontent as yemen or afgahanistan or anywhere really. lots of tribal conflict there that is gonna make the resolution messy as f*ck.

halfway agreed tho on the fact that russian and chinese interest has primarily to do with supporting their iranian allies out of shame for caving last year... not positive about that but it definitely strikes me as a hunch

[jamal99]

Kosovo

Japan

Germany

Kosovo is not a country. I mean, it kinda is now, but shouldn't be...

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Some people say we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man when they ask for it. Some think we should get involved when some dictator starts commiting genocide. Others believe we should try to stop the spread of communisim or islamic fundamentalism, or whatever. Not I.

I say if you aren't strong enough or smart enough to keep this shit from happening then you deserve to get wiped out. If you are starving and your entire continent hasn't made any progress in the last 2000 years then tough shit. Survival of the fittest. When we do this stuff the people aren't grateful anyway so what's the point?

Hippy do-gooders over here are always trying to raise awareness for these causes and bemoaning the religious, policial and economic philosophies that made us successful in the first place. They want to take my tax money to pay for it and send my son half way across the world to do it. Liberals are cowards so they sure as hell aren't going. F**k that shit.

[QUIZZLE]

Gotta love the hypocrisy of other countries right. My roommates here in New Zealand try to egg me on all the time because they know I get hot about it.

But yet they, wear American brands, use facebook, use iphones, listen to american bands. If you don't like Amurrica don't support anything Amurrican.

[shlver]

i'd research syria a wee bit more if you're convinced libya was infighting and syria wasn't. libya was maybe more conveniently divided to allow the west to intervene on behalf of the 'revolutionaries' but syria has as much sectarian malcontent as yemen or afgahanistan or anywhere really. lots of tribal conflict there that is gonna make the resolution messy as f*ck.

halfway agreed tho on the fact that russian and chinese interest has primarily to do with supporting their iranian allies out of shame for caving last year... not positive about that but it definitely strikes me as a hunch
I'll take your word on it, but I was under the impression the situation that the situation UN and Obama was ignoring was the killing of protesters in Damascus? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[RaininTwos]

Western Europe would have been speaking Russian had we not taken the Western Front.
:biggums:

The British Empire would have CRUSHED the Russians from every direction imo

[SevereUpInHere]

http://i.imgur.com/ARj7q.jpg


Can someone explain this account to me?

[RidonKs]

I'll take your word on it, but I was under the impression the situation that the situation UN and Obama was ignoring was the killing of protesters in Damascus? Correct me if I'm wrong.
that's the most obvious sign of trouble yeah, and it isn't confined to damascus, in fact things have slowed down there of late as state resistance has decided to take most of its fighting/protest smothering techniques away from the big metropolises that can catch international attention. but regardless, the country is so fractured after putting up with the assad's for 30 odd years, it's pretty much incapable of a larger peaceful arrangement. tribal rivalry is unbelievably intense, the fact that 80 or 90% of the country happens to be sunni becomes almost moot.

tho you're right on other points; a collapse of syria would bode well for the west given that it isn't exactly on the christmas list. gadaffi regardless of what the op says actually became a key ally with bush on the terror war, in spite of the troubled past. assad on the other hand is still on that 'evil western overlord' shit.

so offering any kind of aid to the protesters/revolutionaries/eclectic mix of folks who happen to hate assad would be a bad idea on the difficulty of transition alone. but it also doesn't make sense strategically because syria still happens to bat for the wrong side.

[JtotheIzzo]

.. without actually understanding the situation? And I'm not an american hater or anything, I just think its something that needs to be asked. Whenever there is a conflict in a country, or between two countries, America just runs in either -

- Helps the guy thats losing, to make themselves look better to the rest of the world.

- Help the enemies of someone they have been trying to get rid of for awhile (e.g. gaddafi), while simultaneously making this person and their government look as bad as possible.

- Feed the american people wssith fears and lies until the people insist they go over there and stop these evil guys.

- Get involved without actually distinguising between the sides and what each stands for.

- Gets involved in other peoples fights when the needs of americans are right in front of them and being ignored.

All of the reasons above are up for discussion, btw, if you guys want to disagree. This isn't a patriotism thing, since the english government is just as bad.

America has a vested ($$$) interest in every country on Earth minus North Korea and Cuba.

When a country becomes a global player, and they open up their market to the world, it is mainly American interests who invest and profit from these foreign markets (other countries do as well but their share pales in comparison). In many countries foreign interests can own up to 49% of domestic companies, so in a way Americans have a huge stake in every major player in every country.

When shit happens that stops the flow of goods (most recently oil) or threatens emerging markets, Americans stand to lose a lot of money. When the threat becomes large (Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran) a war becomes a viable option. To hedge their bets America develops and sells a lot of their old military equipment and technologies so other countries can help in the fight. When they struggle, America will step in. Sometimes the battle is worthwhile or winnable (Iraq) other times the battle gets forgotten because the hill is too steep to climb (Taiwan/China).

The biggest global player in a global market place has an interest in everyone.