US foreign policy - is it good or is it terror?
America has been a dominating military and economic force since the end of WW2. Nowadays the balance of powers has shifted to the East a bit (primarily China), but US is still holding very strong and is dominating in many fields.
The US is well known for its love for democracy - yet many of its citizens don't seem to be in favor of the majority of the moves its government decides to make. And when it comes to US foreign policy the situation gets extremely complicated. US (alongside some Western European countries) has started 4 wars in the past 20 years, all in the name of democracy and freedom. What are the results of these wars?
Does the US (and the coalition) have the right to do something like that?
- isn't it the job of people to fight for their freedom from a regime?
- are these 'assisted' fights for freedom simply exploitations?
Is the US just being a bully and stealing other countries resources?
Is violence needed? If yes, is it effective?
Can violence ever lead to a lasting peace?
I'm targeting the US with this debate just because of it's dominating political and military position.
And I'm interested to see your thoughts on this issue.
Some tragic numbers:
[Iraq] Documented civilian deaths from violence: 100,708 – 110,005 [1]
[Whole World] Deaths due to terrorist attacks (excluding 9/11): 18,057 (from the year 1857 to 2011) [2]
[Iraq] Documented US military casualties: 4,452 [3][4]
[USA] 9/11 terrorist attacks - civilian casualties: 3,000 [5]
[Afghanistan] Documented US military casualties: 1,572 [6]
US is a force for good
Side Score: 0
|
 |
US is a force of terror
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
2
points
I love my country. I think most of the people in the military aren't evil bigoted wrongdoers either. I think it's right to try and liberate innocent people from evil leaders and malicious organizations. But, I don't think it's right to invade countries based upon, well, nothing at all. The only thing the Iraq War accomplished was the hanging of Saddam Hussein, which brought an end to a very evil regime (it was my understanding his sons were killed during bombings, but I suppose I'll never actually know). But how many innocent men, women, and children had to die for that? Just in the mere effort? Far too many. I don't think our military is evil, but ultimately, my opinion is under 'Force of terror' because our military is totally incompetent. They are the most bad-ass pieces of geared-out freedom fighters on the face of the Earth, and I don't even think aliens would beat them in a good 1 on 1 fight, but that doesn't make them, as a whole, smart. There's always a way to avoid death. Always. The ends do NOT justify the means, in most cases. If you have to kill hundreds of people to get to a man who's only killed a dozen, you are either far more evil, or extremely stupid. Probably both to a degree. They could have done better. They could have fought in some way that saved innocent lives and destroyed the hostile or evil ones. But they didn't, because they started the war based on a flat out lie. A lie so kooky that it makes one paranoid despite that fact that it's only based on stupidity of the former president. Maybe the lie about the WMD's wouldn't have changed anything. Maybe too many people would have died anyway just because we aren't efficient enough when it comes to strategy and not just technology. That unmanned hunter drone saved the lives of troops by bombing a city by itself, but how many civilian lives did it accidentally take in the process since it was unmanned? Too many. There should've been a better way. So yes, we killed an evil man. Was is worth the lives it cost? I don't feel that way. Maybe if the evil man we killed had been... say... HITLER. But he wasn't. Thousands don't beat millions. I hate thinking of people as numbers, but the universe, no matter how compassionate, involves numbers. Force of Terror? Sorta. More like 'Force of Recklessness'. Not evil. Just moronic. Side: US is a force of terror
|
