NationStates Jolt Archive

So many people are clamoring for the US to help out in Darfur, and other places, myself including.

And yet, when the US does go to help a nation from humanitarian horrors, it is accused of being meddlesome, or worse, going only for personal, selfish interests.

How does the US escape this Catch 22?

you cant. you can only do what you think is right and accept that a certain number of people will think we were wrong.

And yet, when the US does go to help a nation from humanitarian horrors, it is accused of being meddlesome, or worse, going only for personal, selfish interests.

People being painfully aware of the US' track record in the matter is a bitch, ain't it?

When they put a disgusting ad in time magazine with some guy with shrapnel wounds, I decided I would not donate anything to this cause. If you do stupid ads, you get no money.

People being painfully aware of the US' track record in the matter is a bitch, ain't it?

I'm going to be upfront. History is not my forte. There is absolutely no instance of America 'doing the good thing' and just helping out?


It just seems like the US is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

If she helps out, from legitimate concern, then people will still cry foul play.
If she does not, then America is the evil superpower that sat and did nothing.

When they put a disgusting ad in time magazine with some guy with shrapnel wounds, I decided I would not donate anything to this cause. If you do stupid ads, you get no money.

Why is it stupid?

When they put a disgusting ad in time magazine with some guy with shrapnel wounds, I decided I would not donate anything to this cause. If you do stupid ads, you get no money.

That's a rather mindless approach to charity. So, basically, advertisement, in all it's garish form, runs your life and makes your decisions? Just because Klondike has awesome commercials doesn't mean the candy is all that great.

You are content to allow people to suffer because someone they didn't know made a bad ad. Tsk tsk.

There is absolutely no instance of America 'doing the good thing' and just helping out?

Most every rule has an exception that confirms it. Doesn't change the rule, though.

So many people are clamoring for the US to help out in Darfur, and other places, myself including.

And yet, when the US does go to help a nation from humanitarian horrors, it is accused of being meddlesome, or worse, going only for personal, selfish interests.

How does the US escape this Catch 22?

We mind our own business. The UN is so hellbent on stopping genocide but fail to do so everytime but still the US gets the brunt of the blame for it. Whether it was our military killing "innocent" civilians in Mogadishu or our inability to step in and stop Rwanda, we're always to blame. I say we mind our own business and if they want to kill each other in Darfur or Somalia or wherever, let them do it, so long as they don't export it to our streets. It's time the US stopped worrying about everyone else's problems and deal with our own.

We mind our own business. The UN is so hellbent on stopping genocide but fail to do so everytime but still the US gets the brunt of the blame for it. Whether it was our military killing "innocent" civilians in Mogadishu or our inability to step in and stop Rwanda, we're always to blame. I say we mind our own business and if they want to kill each other in Darfur or Somalia or wherever, let them do it, so long as they don't export it to our streets. It's time the US stopped worrying about everyone else's problems and deal with our own.

I'm on the verge of feeling this way myself.

And yet, I feel that since we have the means, we should try to do the best we can. It is reprehensible to not do something when something good could be done.

I almost got into the car crash once. Either I do nothing, and for certain slam into the car in front of me, or I quick veer into the other lane, and perhaps get hit over there. I veered. And did not get into a crash.

Though action may cause you to crash, isn't it better to act, when the crash is unavoidable either way?

Most every rule has an exception that confirms it. Doesn't change the rule, though.

I am wondering what made the rule in the first place.

Could it just be that conspiracy theorists whispered too loudly too many times to create the rule?

I know I'll probably get burned for this, but I honestly don't think Bush went to Iraq for the oil. I think he went because he could, because it was a legacy from his father, and because getting rid of WMD's and a killer dictator would look good from the populace standpoint.

Basically, it was a failed publicity stunt. But it wasn't for oil.

I'm going to be upfront. History is not my forte. There is absolutely no instance of America 'doing the good thing' and just helping out?


It just seems like the US is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

If she helps out, from legitimate concern, then people will still cry foul play.
If she does not, then America is the evil superpower that sat and did nothing.

It is extremely rare, if not non-existant, that America has ever gotten involved in a conflict for purely "good and decent" concerns. Pretty much every affair we have ever been had our own little concerns involved, much of the time as the main factor.

And much of the time, we make the problem far worse than it originally was.

So really, our track record is very often not concerned with "legitimate concern", and often times our own self-interest plays forward.

I am wondering what made the rule in the first place.

Could it just be that conspiracy theorists whispered too loudly too many times to create the rule?

I know I'll probably get burned for this, but I honestly don't think Bush went to Iraq for the oil. I think he went because he could, because it was a legacy from his father, and because getting rid of WMD's and a killer dictator would look good from the populace standpoint.

Basically, it was a failed publicity stunt. But it wasn't for oil.

in any action, someone gets screwed. we mostly do what is in the best interest of the american people and that always leaves some one holding the short end. there will never be a time when we move in with our military and no one hates us for it.

I am wondering what made the rule in the first place.

Could it just be that conspiracy theorists whispered too loudly too many times to create the rule?

I know I'll probably get burned for this, but I honestly don't think Bush went to Iraq for the oil. I think he went because he could, because it was a legacy from his father, and because getting rid of WMD's and a killer dictator would look good from the populace standpoint.

Basically, it was a failed publicity stunt. But it wasn't for oil.

Not oil, necessarily, but the vast amounts of money one makes in war, more than likely. I find it no coincidence that Haliburton is getting all of these no-bid contract, and a major stockholder happens to be Vice-Pres Cheney. Or the fact that the reduction in oil supply caused by the invasion would drive prices up, creating more revenue for stock-holders in oil companies, many of whom just happen to be in the government...

But hey, let's not get into specifics.

Also, Iraq didn't have WMD's. that's been pretty much shown.

I am wondering what made the rule in the first place.

Could it just be that conspiracy theorists whispered too loudly too many times to create the rule?

Or it could be all those dictators the US propped up, installed and supported after toppling democratically elected governments, or that "help" that turned out to be nothing more than picking a side that was anti-Soviet and then screwing them over once the Soviets won/lost, or that "help" which was quickly turned into expectancy as to servitude and demands for unfair trade concessions rendering those on the receiving end of the "help" mere pawns in a very belligerent foreign policy emanating from a superpower not exactly known for being peace-loving or benevolent or altruistic...

It is extremely rare, if not non-existant, that America has ever gotten involved in a conflict for purely "good and decent" concerns. Pretty much every affair we have ever been had our own little concerns involved, much of the time as the main factor.

And much of the time, we make the problem far worse than it originally was.

So really, our track record is very often not concerned with "legitimate concern", and often times our own self-interest plays forward.

While the US has acted more times than not in its own interests, that is the nature of politics. All nations act at one time or another with 'enlightened' self-interest. That is, like it or not, the reality. Idealism and helping for the sake of helping simply do not exist in the realm of nations themselves. As Michael Crighton succintly put it, 'Everyone has an agenda... except me'. :)

Fassigen, so do you think America should go and help out in Darfur?


It is good economics to get something out of it if you are going to spend millions helping people out.

What if America did a couple of good faith efforts, starting with Darfur. Do you think it could ever win back the respect, and trust, of other nations?

Fassigen, so do you think America should go and help out in Darfur?


It is good economics to get something out of it if you are going to spend millions helping people out.


Indeed it is, HOWEVER many conflicts we get involved in have been shown that we screwed things over far worse than before, toppling at least slightly benevolent governments to put into place puppet governments which only screw the people of said country over, force a system that is purely for the interest of the US, not the people of said country, and have infact funded terrorists to topple decent countries, solely with US interest in mind.

THere is a difference between trying to get something good out of doing things, and having it as the only reason. Which seems to be the only real reason we get into conflict a great deal of the time.


What if America did a couple of good faith efforts, starting with Darfur. Do you think it could ever win back the respect, and trust, of other nations?

It'd help, but asshats in Chief have dug us into a hole that is going to be tough to get out of.

Indeed it is, HOWEVER many conflicts we get involved in have been shown that we screwed things over far worse than before, toppling at least slightly benevolent governments to put into place puppet governments which only screw the people of said country over, force a system that is purely for the interest of the US, not the people of said country, and have infact funded terrorists to topple decent countries, solely with US interest in mind.

Blah. So we do suck. How do other countries rank? Do they have any better luck when they try to help?

I do have a slightly related question.

What was the point of Vietnam? What was the reason given to the American people, and then what was the actual reason we went?

very similar to the war in iraq only with a longer lead time to massive destruction/crash and burn stage. we were supporting the people of south vietnam in their quest to be free and democratic.

Blah. So we do suck. How do other countries rank? Do they have any better luck when they try to help?

I do have a slightly related question.

What was the point of Vietnam? What was the reason given to the American people, and then what was the actual reason we went?

Quite frankly, nobody has a good track record when doing such. However, America tends to stick it's finger in places quite a bit more frequently and loudly than others. And tends to believe it is more "justified" in doing such, at least these days.

As for Vietnam, the reason as to "why" varies. Most common is to "oppose communism and the spread there of", less commonly to stop the invading North from enterring the South(However, the South refused to negotiate reunification terms, which it had said it would once France got the hell out, more or less anywho).

As for actual reasons, to set up a government that would be pro-US(And by that I mean almost strictly) policy and trade. I would say humanitarianism was on the back burner here.

oh the real reason we went was that it was a proxy war with the soviet union. we were stopping the spread of communism.

oh the real reason we went was that it was a proxy war with the soviet union. we were stopping the spread of communism.

Pft. That was bull, at the very least not the only reason. The only reason we opposed the spread was because it would mean less trade for us.

Pft. That was bull, at the very least not the only reason. The only reason we opposed the spread was because it would mean less trade for us.

thats the same thing

we were in a mostly cold war for global domination. we didnt dare have a war with each other, MAD and all, so we fought here and there around the globe and if someone went one way, we automatically went the other.

why did we go into korea?

Or it could be all those dictators the US propped up, installed and supported after toppling democratically elected governments, or that "help" that turned out to be nothing more than picking a side that was anti-Soviet and then screwing them over once the Soviets won/lost, or that "help" which was quickly turned into expectancy as to servitude and demands for unfair trade concessions rendering those on the receiving end of the "help" mere pawns in a very belligerent foreign policy emanating from a superpower not exactly known for being peace-loving or benevolent or altruistic...
I wouldn't take issue with the USA if a) it stuck its nose out of the business of others and b) it stopped pretending to be altruistic. In fact, best that it makes it a policy to not interfere with others; it usually makes a mess of it whatever its intentions may be, self-serving or not.

thats the same thing

we were in a mostly cold war for global domination. we didnt dare have a war with each other, MAD and all, so we fought here and there around the globe and if someone went one way, we automatically went the other.

why did we go into korea?

Alright, that makes sense as to what you were saying. I though you were trying to justify it with the whole "communism is teh ebilest" shpeal.

Alright, that makes sense as to what you were saying. I though you were trying to justify it with the whole "communism is teh ebilest" shpeal.

nah

the information out of the ussr and china was so controlled then that we really didnt know how bad it was. we were anti-communist because communism is bad for big business.

I wouldn't take issue with the USA if a) it stuck its nose out of the business of others and b) it stopped pretending to be altruistic. In fact, best that it makes it a policy to not interfere with others; it usually makes a mess of it whatever its intentions may be, self-serving or not.

But the whole problem is that if we do nothing, we are still considered bad and evil. The world clamors for our help, and then hates us when we do.

But the whole problem is that if we do nothing, we are still considered bad and evil. The world clamors for our help, and then hates us when we do.
Point them politely to Iraq (or Vietnam). People cannot have it both ways - either they allow the US to interfere perpetually in their affairs, or they accept that it will not interfere unless the parties involved request it.

Point them politely to Iraq (or Vietnam). People cannot have it both ways - either they allow the US to interfere perpetually in their affairs, or they accept that it will not interfere unless the parties involved request it.

People aren't reasonable. They have these proofs in front of them, but don't take notice.


What about internal pressure?

Many times, I have heard the same people raving at the mess in Iraq, and then wondering why we are not helping out in other countries.

Also, there was the incident with the tidal wave last Christmas (was that last Christmas?).
I believe it went that the US gave more than anyone else, but was then lambasted for not giving, in comparison to the ability of other countries, an equal share. Does it ever stop?

So many people are clamoring for the US to help out in Darfur, and other places, myself including.

And yet, when the US does go to help a nation from humanitarian horrors, it is accused of being meddlesome, or worse, going only for personal, selfish interests.

How does the US escape this Catch 22?
To make this explanation short and sweet for people who don't want to read too much, the current leadership of the United States would need to be replaced by people who don't act to advance the interests of the nation, corporations, and themselves. Of course, that won't happen because these people are either dead or don't want to have anything to do with politics and leadership. Therefore, our only course of action to ask God to intervene directly into human affairs to stop the violence we are unable to stop because we're too concerned about what other people think of us.

People aren't reasonable. They have these proofs in front of them, but don't take notice.
Pander to their every whim as though they were infants, and of course they won't be.

What about internal pressure?
Read below.

Many times, I have heard the same people raving at the mess in Iraq, and then wondering why we are not helping out in other countries.
Then, they must consider two things:
i)Would they like their country to be invaded by some other power that disapproves of their way of life (e.g. China)?
ii)Are they willing to fund the war-effort personally, and fight if need be, even if things go awry? Because those who disapprove of the war should not be forced to get involved in other people's nonsense.

Unless both answers are in the affirmative, they should expect their ranting to be treated for what it is - nonsense. All it consists of is some warmongering mob looting the money of others to satisfy their base needs.

Also, there was the incident with the tidal wave last Christmas (was that last Christmas?).
I believe it went that the US gave more than anyone else, but was then lambasted for not giving, in comparison to the ability of other countries, an equal share. Does it ever stop?
That it even gave should be considered enough in my opinion - its citizens have no obligation to look after others unless they so desire. Apparently the USA had the highest contributions on an individual basis; to me this means more than some nanny-state forcing the cash out of its citizens pockets to give to whatever cause it considers worthy of its time (and in place of its citizenry's "inferior" judgement).

I'm going to be upfront. History is not my forte. There is absolutely no instance of America 'doing the good thing' and just helping out?

i'd say the Marshall Plan is one of the US' more altruistic acts

Many times, I have heard the same people raving at the mess in Iraq, and then wondering why we are not helping out in other countries.

these 'same people' would be the ones that were pointing out the error of invading iraq in the first place?
who predicted the 'mess' accurately?
and who didn't believe the given reasons (wmd's, 'free the people' etc)?

the cia runs around the world manipulating and toppling governments that disagree with US policy, set up puppets and prop up dictators
then the US tells the world it should be leader, and we all distrust it because of its own actions

hardly unfair on america to be judged by its own action...

i'd say the Marshall Plan is one of the US' more altruistic acts

Yep, the Marshall Plan rocked... pretty much helped rebuild Western Europe with only us expecting Europe to host our military bases in return (though that was a stricture of NATO).

USA should have been, and stayed isolationist.