ƵƵƵƵƵƵƵ

Problem is I think that usa government/people believes (actually does!) that they and only they can show the world what democracy is. (personally I dont believe a country that think torture and inprisonement without trials is ok is a democracy. Tastes too much nazi to me.) And usa drives nato, and there you go. Disaster in motion.

I agree that each country should be left alone, change have to come from the inside, forced change will only cause aggression.
There is nothing wrong with pressure, like boycot, like what amnesty does...because thats not interfering INSIDE the community.

Democracy.
Is democracy best? We think so, because its our way!
And why would our way be better? Because we have been told it is. Because every school in every country will teach that "we are better than the rest".
History as we know it has almost always been written by the winners. Of course they were best. Right?
I hope I will never be stupid enough to buy that crap. And I sincerely hope that there will be change.

I have to agree with your comments against the USA, or rather its Government. I remember when the US invaded Iraq, yesh, that was scary. It was either follow them or be left out in the cold, you couldn't go 5 minutes without hearing heated discussion against their actions, or in steadfast support of their actions. Im pretty sure that was about as close as Australia has ever got to active and intense dislike of American politics and Bush, the feeling of being "dragged off" into the fray was a feeling Im sure many other western nations felt.

Oh well, here's hoping Obama can be alittle more civilised. Or atleast not fly in blatant disregard to the international community!

I'm a conservative and an isolationist. We have no business in Iraq. I'm against the war on constitutional grounds.

I don't like Bush and I sure don't like Obama. I voted for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Why do we have to play global cop/mediator? If two countries want to mix it up, let them have at it.

I myself believe in Non-Interventionism. I agree we have too much vested interest in other nations and not our own. We worry so much about other nations that we ignore our own. I would rather my country go back to the old policy.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." G Washington.

It would apply to the Asia minor and Asia as well I think.

When the world economy crashed in 29 America and Europe was in a process of trying to recover, due to being uninvolved certain powers came to rise.
We were drawn out during the first World War, many of us did not want to be involved but ultimately that changed due to fear. Our intervention in ww1 helped create Hitlers rise due to the way Germany was handled and in its part contributed to the second world war.

Now we have another screwed up economic situation, and still we are fiddling with people who have no desire for our help or our ways..although they will take a cash donation:p

I think we have enough to be concerned with at home now, how quick we are to run to Haiti when a few years ago people in Louisiana were dying from the flood.

So for myself I would prefer to go back to Non-Interventionism but I actually do not know how that would be accomplished now since we have stumbled this far.

Let other countries do as they please and fight as much as they wish and learn to take care of our own brothers before we concern our self with our neighbors. We will always be "Daisy Miller"

Yeah, I wish the united states would take care of their own country instead of picking fights and being bossy telling other countries how things should be done when they can't get anything right in their own infant country.

Yeah 'cause other countries don't do the same thing.

I find it amusing that a Polish person, whose entire country exists on the map in its several incarnations because of "international interventionism" is complaining about such. Also, in the same breath that they are complaining about just being a few decades past Soviet communist influence and worrying "why cause the Russians anxiety?" they ask what they have to worry about from "any country?"

Internationalism doesn't just cause wars, it prevents them. It promotes a web of interdependence that forces nations to make choices when they're inclined to bad behavior. And really, the fact that I'm chiming in about this in the US with a Pole on a website hosted in the UK pretty much sums it up when I say the cat is out of the bag. A person can't afford to stick its head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

Anyone who knows me knows I took a hard stance against the war in Iraq. But that's not because there's never any good reason to butt in when someone far away from you starts killing other people, and just because your life is pleasant in your home in Poland isn't an excuse to not invest in easing suffering because of poverty in Africa and elsewhere in the world either. It's not even an excuse when you say "Things are tough over here, too" because if it were then it would suffice as an excuse to avoid ever doing anything. Things are always difficult in some fashion regarding something. The world is complicated.

Finally, politics is a matter of sociology and influencing people as much as it is anything else. Your little meandering into "golly, I sure hope people who do politics good would think about people!" is insulting. That's not all it's about, but regarding people and their study is certainly the most critical and artful thing about politics.

If there's a major joint military installation planned in Poland, it's not like nobody Polish had a say in allowing it. It's not like Poles won't be involved in constructing it, working in it, supplying it, and the like. So why would Poland allow it? Because it's good for Poland and Polish citizens, that's why. There's a legitimate argument that might say that it's not outweighed by the downsides of such an installation, but to imply that other people simply muscled into your affairs and didn't consider the ramifications is just...silly. Believe me, everything long term gets run through at least a half dozen committees on our side, and probably at least as many in Poland. If we build this we're not running all over Poland, we're entering a long term relationship of trust with Poland.

Unless it directly involves us, we should stay out of it.

Meanwhile, make sure the populace is armed. Like when Hitler wanted to go through Switzerland, whose population is armed. Hitler was told that his army wouldn't make it through Switzerland alive!

bolded parts FTW.

my response to the underlined bit: you can always count on change. change is the only guarantee in life.

and i also have to agree with AlexandraSpears' " Unless it directly involves us, we should stay out of it " statement.

This is not true. The Swiss army wasn't prepared for war. They didn't have combat tanks or fighter aircrafts, which is why they bought 80 Messerschmitts from Germany right before the war. There was a total of 450,000 Swiss soldiers while Germany had almost 18 million soldiers (a similar unbalance between Germany and Russia, who eventually had over 30 million soldiers, was the main reason why Germany eventually lost the war). Furthermore, Switzerland was afraid of Germany because of the successful blitzkrieg operations against
France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland.
I can't explain in detail why Germany didn't invade Switzerland because I'm not an expert but there just was no reason to do it and also, it surely had to do with the gold transactions through the Swiss banking system.

About the actual topic: I don't think we should stay out of conflicts which don't directly involve us. After all, the industrial countries are historically responsible for many of them (see e.g. Belgium and Congo, the US and Afghanistan). Unfortunately, we mostly make things worse by only pursuing our own interests and ignoring the individuality of people. Our understanding of democracy isn't necessarily what's best for Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. It doesn't suffice to free a country from tyranny only for a civil war to take the place of it. The current actions of the USA, Germany and other countries show that we have learned nothing from history.

<<< Is from the USA.

I know our goverment isnt perfect. I dont think we need to go and try to "change" other goverments but not all our actions are bad.

As far as Iraq goes- The war has gone on long enough, we need to come home. I agree on that. I have many friends and family members that have gone ever there and some are still there now. I wasnt against the war. I think some people have forgotten what took us over there in the first place and yes I know it is for more than one reason.

Our country was devistated with the terrorist attacks. We lost thousands of lives. Many familes were effect by it. Also that wasnt the first time we have been targeted. How many times were we to get slapped in the face before we reaspond to it. That was the final straw. Iraq was harboring more than one the indivuals who was responsible for this. So I was glad to go ahead and get the little fuc*ers.

Yes I know it was about oil too. Everything has something to do with oil now a days. Now after we went in there and did our thing, should we have just left the country in shambles? No. We stayed and helped to rebuild it. Of course we are going to get them into the same type of goverment we have, thats what we know. Why try to show them a different goverment we know nothing how to run. Also i believe we should leave now. I dont think we can do much more over there and I want my family and friends home.

Now as far as NATO and such with a lot of influence from America, Other countries need us just as much as we need them. We are third ranking in the worlds population. We need to import from other countries. That is a lot of money we are spending to feed and house over 308 million people.

As far as staying out of other countires buisness, yes I believe we should. If the country is fine and dandy then then them the the hell alone. Still as soon as someone needs some help with a war, America for some reason stands beside the country that wanted us to leave them the hell alone.

We arent all bad. WWII We were already at war with Japan and still went to help out Europe, Hitler didnt declare war on us. I dont think someone should complain about helping us when in past situations we were there to help them. But maybe we should just leave other countires alone and when they need help tell them no.

Inside the Beltway

And another site related to this subject


**Fixed**

That was great!

I haven't gotten to the second link yet because I just can't get enough of the first. Thank you for making my day!

There is actually 4 videos from Assume the Postion 101 part 1

and then three parts to class 102. If you want to watch the whole set, it makes a lot more sense in order, and quite hilarious.

And truth be told, I linked that by accident... I was linking to another site on a different subject.

I can go back and edit my original post with the proper link.

I did watch them all!

They were great!

The only reason America helped us was because they sent a cruise ship full of American citizens into German waters, ignoring warnings that had been posted in the papers from Germany saying ANY foreign ships would be destroyed. This obviously outraged the American public and they then agreed to join the war.

This planet belongs to everyone... I don't think countries should intervene with war and military tactics, but, I think international affairs, like aid in Haiti, should be participated in by all countries.

I think that war should be avoided whenever possible, but at times, it is necessary. If there is a terrible wrong being committed, such as genocide, war may be the only option to stop it.

I think that countries should not interfere with other countries in matters that are strictly cultural, but many elements of culture may have a moral element as well. For example, the way women are treated as lesser beings in many countries is morally wrong. It is something that is less likely to elicit war, but something that other nations should put pressure on participating nations to stop. Cultural relativism is a deeply flawed concept; just because there are different moral views from culture to culture does not mean that all are acceptable.

Further, it is in the best interests, particularly of smaller nations, to have allies willing to defend one's country from hostility. If every country acted strictly independently and in its own self-interests, it is not difficult to see larger, power-hungry countries conquering relatively defenseless smaller countries. America working as an international policeman discourages other countries from doing things that would put them on our bad side, so it helps maintain peace.

Civilization works best if nations act like communities. Communities are sometimes hard on individuality, but ultimately the sorts of pressures that communities bring to bear offer exchanges of ideas and concepts, and act to provide security. Communities have squabbles over standards though, and sometimes a criminal moves into town, and yeah - sometimes there's one rich obnoxious dude basically rolling over the rest of the folks on the block. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the world outside your borders is really a naive position though, because you're already in the community no matter what. Just because you're upset with the way the group acts doesn't make your position as a member of the group go away, all you get for isolating yourself is no say in how the community is, while alienating the community.

My guess is you are talking about the Lusitania. She was sank in 1915, during World War I. You quoted innocenteyes, who was talking about World War II.

Ahh... 20th century history. I feel like I'm back in high school again.

I think she may have a point, though, even if she got the wrong war. The U.S. didn't enter into WW1 or WW2 until it got personal (the Lusitania in WW1, Pearl Harbor in WW2)... whereas other countries fought with each other from the beginning due to previous alliances.

The U.S. really was a bit of a loner until the second half of the 20th century and didn't really poke its nose into other countries' affairs. How things change!

I'm a college history teacher, and I have my students read works and speeches by Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, and GW Bush to track the shift in US policy from isolationism to pre-emptive action.

The question they always ask is "Why?" We're still working on the answer to that!