News Is the U.S. Truly a Global Peacemaker?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravedigger
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the U.S. portrayal as a "global peace maker," questioning its legitimacy given the violent realities in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. It highlights that U.S. military presence during elections raises doubts about the fairness of resulting governments. Participants argue that the U.S. has historically contributed to global instability through military interventions and support for dictatorships, suggesting that it has sown the seeds of terrorism it now seeks to combat. The conversation also touches on the disparity between U.S. foreign aid and its military actions, with some asserting that humanitarian efforts do not absolve the U.S. of its aggressive foreign policies. Overall, the dialogue reflects deep skepticism about the U.S.'s role in global peace and stability.
gravedigger
All the bravo and hype that the U.S is reacieving these days for being a "global peace maker" makes one wonder wether it is really doing it's bit,when one sane man reads in the dailies that the prisoners being murdered in afghanistan ,the most of all the iraqi people going to vote in january "under the strict supervision of the american gunmen"can anyone be of the opinion that the so formed government be fair enough and unbiased i guess if anyone views the hideous activities of the president rather than the U.S.{it's not fair to condemn the U.S. for the illegitimate activities of the prez}to achieve global stability in terms of military he has his army over every corner of the world "TO RESTORE THE HARMONY IF LOST IN ANY CASE " :rolleyes: all dis things makes me wonder if prez himslef is influencing the so called "TERRORISM" global american terrorism ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gravedigger said:
it's not fair to condemn the U.S. for the illegitimate activities of the prez
What could be more fair than blaming the activities of a single man on the American people when they are the ones that voted him into power in the first place?
 
And you folks have his four-year record and numerous tv appearances to judge him by, too late to claim ignorance of the devil now. I am afraid the presumption of innocence is no more.
 
48% of Americans voters (57 million people) voted against Bush (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/)
(that's more people than in the entire country of Canada, Smurf)
Are you ready to condemn them all (plus all the children whom could not vote)?

Plus, it seems that Bush did not win because of the war on Iraq. Instead, polls indicate that "values" (presumably, Christian values such as voting against gay marriages) tipped the scale in Bush's favor.

the most of all the iraqi people going to vote in january "under the strict supervision of the american gunmen"

My understanding is that the original plan was to have US troops stay away from the election polls; however, now they are thought to be needed to keep the peace due to all the insurgents setting off car bombs, etc.
 
Like any other country, the USA looks after its own interests. More than any other country (or at least, powerful country), however, it believes in the moral rightness of its foreign policy. I'm still trying to understand the reasons for this, which probably requires learning its history extremely thoroughly.
 
gravedigger said:
All the bravo and hype that the U.S is reacieving these days for being a "global peace maker" makes one wonder wether it is really doing it's bit

>> Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments.
>> Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.
>> Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.
>> Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.
>> Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target -- being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are of course the latest examples.
>> Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
>> Repeated use of cluster bombs, another fiendish device designed by a mad scientist, which has robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and some of their eyesight, and continues to do so every day in many countries as the bombs remain on the ground.
>> Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.
>> Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.
>> Gross manipulation of labor movements.
>> Shameless manufacture of "news", the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.
>> Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.
>> Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.
>> Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA's purposes.
>> Supporting death squads, particularly in Latin America.
>> Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world's masses by turning the screws of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.
>> Much of the above has led to millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/debate.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had no idea it was that many
 
Gee, fourier_jr, that list isn't at all misleading, out of context, or exaggerated! :rolleyes:
 
re

now they are thought to be needed to keep the peace due to all the insurgents setting off car bombs, etc.
"phobos " i would like to lend u some knowledge that the people who are attacking the U.S. military are not insurgents i would like u to know da real meaning of insurgents and insurgency in this case the U.S.are the never invited guests in the iraqi desert,let this thing be apart i had come across a reply which said that the U.S waz fighting global terrorism ,don't u will to ask who created it in the first place ? IT WAS THE U.S do u remember da gulf war in which the liberty loving state allowed to help the then iraqi dictator in a disguised fashion by letting him know da whereabouts of the kuwaitain lay outs and the same state "helped" the kuwaitian army with intelligence, sounds interesting right ? still feel the u.s is reaping the rewards of the seeds which it had sown in the past :confused: and one more point that comes into my silly mind is dat to fight the global terrorism it's lending F-16'S ,ORIONS AND OTHER SOPHISTICATED defence equipments to other nations don't you think that this shall give a new phase something which we had already seen prior to the world war 2 "GLOBAL ARMS RACE ?? i really have a sympathizing fell towards all da global leaders who try to create peace with the help of U.S {george bush rather}who themselves r funding it !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Gee, fourier_jr, that list isn't at all misleading, out of context, or exaggerated! :rolleyes:
Your right, we should do our own research and come up with some statistics.
 
  • #11
gravedigger said:
All the bravo and hype that the U.S is reacieving these days for being a "global peace maker" makes one wonder wether it is really doing it's bit
Evidently you don't understand the history behind the reference to the "Peacemaker". Let me clue you in...
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg32-e.htm :rolleyes:
 
  • #12
Something I find interesting is that the US government gives nearly two times as much as any other country in foriegn aid (although their percentage is the lowest per GNI), but more importantly, US citizens give nearly three times as much in foriegn aid as their own goverment, through churchs, hunger organizations, the Red Cross, etc. And while most foriegn aid is tied politically, contributions directly from the US citizens through those types of organizations are not.

While this is not directly related to peacemaking it should certainly be considered as contributing to reducing the causes of war and hatred, shouldn't it? Shouldn't feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick be considered works of peace?

One final thing on this subject, is that Afganistan is the tenth highest recipient of US foriegn aid. I just thought that was interesting.

World distribution of Foriegn Aid
 
  • #13
Smurf said:
Your right, we should do our own research and come up with some statistics.

it's all in killing hope by bill blum; you can find out where he learned about all that stuff by simply checking his footnotes, which includes official government documents, mainstream media reports, human-rights reports, etc etc
 
  • #14
Artman said:
Something I find interesting is that the US government gives nearly two times as much as any other country in foriegn aid (although their percentage is the lowest per GNI), but more importantly, US citizens give nearly three times as much in foriegn aid as their own goverment, through churchs, hunger organizations, the Red Cross, etc. And while most foriegn aid is tied politically, contributions directly from the US citizens through those types of organizations are not.

While this is not directly related to peacemaking it should certainly be considered as contributing to reducing the causes of war and hatred, shouldn't it? Shouldn't feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick be considered works of peace?

One final thing on this subject, is that Afganistan is the tenth highest recipient of US foriegn aid. I just thought that was interesting.

World distribution of Foriegn Aid

Please do not attempt to bring balance or reason to this conversation.

We were much more content blathering on about the Eee-ev-il USA.

A better question for the name of this thread would have been, "How long has it been since our gov't did more to stem mayhem in the world than things just like sending Mad Albright to the UN to lobby to have the word 'genocide' changed to 'genocide-like?'

Getting kicked out of Somalia doesn't count. Totally, shamefully embarrassing ourselves at the UN during the Rwanda crisis doesn't count. Embassy bombings don't count. Cole doesn't count. Loathing the military doesn't count. Eyes focused like a laser beam on legacy/resume doesn't count. Doing nothing about gathering threats in the world, other than issuing a report that says, "Sorry for leaving all the empty pizza boxes, but lookout, something bad is likely to happen in the next quarter of a century, some adult should actually DO something about that" doesn't count. Negotiating away the farm to the North Koreans, giving away soemthing in return for absilutely nothing while they laugh at us behind our back and continue bidness as usual doesn't count.

Posing over the (fantastic, by the way) crab spread at Renaissance Weekends counts. "Hi Bill!" "Hi Wesley! How's tricks?"

Furrowed brows over $200 dinners at the Four Seasons counts, especially if turned in after an especailly windy do nothing day on E. 44th.

The fortieth annual university symposium, "What should be done about the M.E.?" complete with name tags and paid guest speakers counts. It has become a real growth industry in the past few decades.
 
  • #15
I live on this world long enough to think that we need nation like USA,and this nation somehow must keep mob on the leash.Otherwise we would have total chaos.
 
  • #16


Something I find interesting is that the US government gives nearly two times as much as any other country in foriegn aid
So does this essentially mean when one country gives financial support to the third world nations it gets the universal right TO INVADE THE COUNTRY and beat the hell out of it sounds interesting ! so the next time the LIBERTY LOVING NATION tries to fund the "hunger fight" or the fight against illness and disease all the world population should have the knowledge dat this is a blessing in disguise ? and one more thing i would like to know is dat how come the United States hunger for peace come periodically over 30 years ?remember the vietnam war and as for zlex i would like u 2 b more precise son !1 :zzz: tumor i guess the u.s is doing nothing better than creating pandomonium rather than chaos
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
tumor said:
I live on this world long enough to think that we need nation like USA,and this nation somehow must keep mob on the leash.Otherwise we would have total chaos.
Tumor I don't get you.. you are the most beffudling person I have ever met, are you just playin devil's advocate or do you really believe that? I would love to meet you and discuss some things in person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
gravedigger said:
So does this essentially mean when one country gives financial support to the third world nations it gets the universal right TO INVADE THE COUNTRY and beat the hell out of it sounds interesting !
No, if you notice, I said that this is not directly related to peacemaking. I wonder how peaceful and wonderful a place the world would be if the USA took their 45 Billion dollars in foriegn aid (through combined government and Civilian sources) and just spent it on making their own country better?
 
  • #19
number of people killed by US interventions and covert actions:
(Of course they are not all)


Vietnam 3,000,000
Korea 3,000,000
Iraq 1,000,000
Indonesia 500,000
Cambodia 600,000
Laos 350,000
El Salvador 300,000
Columbia 300,000
Iran 300,000
Guatamala 300,000
East Timor 150,000
Afghanistan 100,000
Nicaragua 25,000
Brazil 50,000
Philippines 50,000
Chile 50,000
Congo 20,000
Panama 4,000
 
  • #20
/\ not to mention that in vietnam there were an additional 400,000 disappeared, 4,500,000 wounded. in the 10 years 1961-1971 the US air force sprayed 20000000 gallons of concentrated arsenic-based & dioxin-laden herbicides (agent orange, etc) all over 6000000 acres of crops & trees, CS (tear gas) & napalm & phosphorous bombs. roughly 13% of south vietnam's land was completely destroyed by that chemical warfare & napalm, etc; that would be like Canada having an area bigger than BC or ontario (like quebec-sized) totally wiped out (!)... and people try to say that the USA lost the vietnam war! :confused:

PS- where did those numbers come from? amnesty intl or something? a link please... (not that I'm really skeptical)

"The West has never been allowed to forget the Nazi holocaust. For 40 years there has been a continuous outpouring of histories, memoirs, novels, feature films, documentaries, television series... played and replayed, in every Western language; museums, memorials, remembrances, ceremonies...Never again! But who hears the voice of the vietnamese peasant? Who can read the language of the vietnamese intellectual? What was the fate of the vietnamese Anne Frank? Where, asks the young American, is Vietnam?" - William Blum, www.killinghope.org


re: foreign aid a lot of that is merely transfers which are internal to US corporations operating in whatever 3rd-world country we're talking about. technically its "foreign aid" but it doesn't really help the people there. whatever the US gives is a pittance when you consider what they spend on other things like their nukes, military, etc
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Um, who started the Vietnam war and for what purpose? Anyone know?
 
  • #22
I believe it was the Vietnamese initially, rebelling against the French colonial government that had been oppressing them for quite some time.
 
  • #23
Initially...it was a rebellion against almost a century of oppressive french rule, then civil war...There were opportunities to allow vietnam to become a democracy long before the Civil war.
This is a good history from a vietnamese perspective:
http://www.vwam.com/vets/history1.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Re

what i know about the vietnam war was that the U.S "created major peace {piece} after the war when the then vietnamese president after the second world war asked the u.s president to liberate it from the ocuupation for which the vietnamese president to impress the u.s prez drafted the letter in the form of the american democracy in turn the treachorus country bombarded and awarded the poor country with some the u.s was pounding the vietnamese land with a total amount of ammunition of about a 100 pounds of artilery over a singe man if an average was drawn vietnam was turn nothing but a bloody land of toxic dump i guess leave apart the war crimes commited the women "raped" the children killed and the lands and villages burnt in order to save it sounds really f***** great and the result of all dat peace createdby the u.s is genetically mutated people which is i guess it cud have been beneficial for the u.s people to get themselves entertained by watching the X-MEN series atleast they can get real mutants i feel pity for the world when people try to kick da hell outta hitlers image when that poor guy was just over possesive
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
a nono for the main question in this thread...
 
  • #26
russ_watters said:
Um, who started the Vietnam war and for what purpose? Anyone know?


Acording to South Knox Bubba, today (12/19) is the anniversary of Ho Chi Minh's raising the standard in 1946 against the French in what was then French Indo-China.
 
  • #27
The Vietnam war was started by greedy capitalists in an attempt to prevent a successfull communist regime from gaining control in South East Asia, the incentive towards this action I like to call the 'Threat of a good example'. The secret war in laos took place simultaneously during this campaign to stop yet another communist uprising there at the same time. America's objective was originally to defeat the communists but later became the total destruction of infrastructure and lowering of standard of living, this, as pointed out before, was quite successfull.
 
  • #28
fourier jr said:
/\ not to mention that in vietnam there were an additional 400,000 disappeared, 4,500,000 wounded. in the 10 years 1961-1971 the US air force sprayed 20000000 gallons of concentrated arsenic-based & dioxin-laden herbicides (agent orange, etc) all over 6000000 acres of crops & trees, CS (tear gas) & napalm & phosphorous bombs. roughly 13% of south vietnam's land was completely destroyed by that chemical warfare & napalm, etc; that would be like Canada having an area bigger than BC or ontario (like quebec-sized) totally wiped out (!)... and people try to say that the USA lost the vietnam war! :confused:

Fourier! those number are biased and are very very lefties ones!

hahaha :smile: :smile:

From FOX NEWS about falujha:

Now the Marines are going to level a neighborhood to make sure the bad guys never use it again. It isn't quite the "destroying a village to save it" formula of the Vietnam War, but it comes close.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
#s of vietnamese who got killed (17% of its population btw):
-vietnam government

info on chemical weapons:
- Arthur Wessing, ed. "Herbicides in War: The Long-Term Ecological & Human Consequences" (Stockholm: SIPRI, 1984) pp.5ff
- Hatfield Consultants Ltd. "Development of Impact Mitigation Strategies Related to the Use of Agent Orange Herbicide in Aluoi Valley, Vietnam, vol.1 (West Vancouver, BC April 2000)

info on amt of destruction:
- William Buckingham Jr., "Operation Ranch Hand: The Air Force and Herbicides in Southeast Asia, 1961-1971" (Washington: US Air Force, 1982) p.82
^ that looks like a government document doesn't it? it was published by the air force
 
  • #30
Smurf said:
The Vietnam war was started by greedy capitalists in an attempt to prevent a successfull communist regime from gaining control in South East Asia, the incentive towards this action I like to call the 'Threat of a good example'. The secret war in laos took place simultaneously during this campaign to stop yet another communist uprising there at the same time. America's objective was originally to defeat the communists but later became the total destruction of infrastructure and lowering of standard of living, this, as pointed out before, was quite successfull.
Now that is just the sort of UNfactual rhetoric I was looking for when I posed the question. Thanks.

The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Facts? Pffft. Useless...
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Facts? Pffft. Useless...

Wait. When you say "the rest of you", you only mean those that don't agree with you, right ?
 
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Now that is just the sort of UNfactual rhetoric I was looking for when I posed the question. Thanks.

The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Facts? Pffft. Useless...
I am only too happy to please you master.
 
  • #33
This may sound simplistic, but I don't think that the USA's role in the world is peacemaker anyway. The way I see it, the role of the USA is big brother. Anyone who has had a big brother, knows that big brothers are not necessarily peacemakers. Big brothers are defenders; big brothers are bullys that pick on their little brothers, but temper it with the knowledge that they think it is for their own good; big brothers think it is okay for them to pick on their family, but don't let an outsider pick on them.

You might not agree with this assessment, but that is what it is, just my opinion of the USA's perceived role in the world.
 
  • #34
No. Lately the US government has become the chump, of the entity with the biggest lump. In fact, we have been in this mode for some time. I want this to end, and for America to start being America, again. We allow the dark economic agendas of big players to tarnish our reputation worldwide, endanger our peace, and bankrupt our way of life. The choir is singing so loudly, no one can seem to hear anything else.
 
  • #35
Artman said:
This may sound simplistic, but I don't think that the USA's role in the world is peacemaker anyway. The way I see it, the role of the USA is big brother. Anyone who has had a big brother, knows that big brothers are not necessarily peacemakers. Big brothers are defenders; big brothers are bullys that pick on their little brothers, but temper it with the knowledge that they think it is for their own good; big brothers think it is okay for them to pick on their family, but don't let an outsider pick on them.

You might not agree with this assessment, but that is what it is, just my opinion of the USA's perceived role in the world.


I see it more like 1984 big brother
 
  • #36
Dayle Record said:
No. Lately the US government has become the chump, of the entity with the biggest lump. In fact, we have been in this mode for some time. I want this to end, and for America to start being America, again. We allow the dark economic agendas of big players to tarnish our reputation worldwide, endanger our peace, and bankrupt our way of life. The choir is singing so loudly, no one can seem to hear anything else.

When did it used to be the "good guy"? The way I've always thought of it is that it entered this phase as soon as it got out of isolationism.
 
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
Wait. When you say "the rest of you", you only mean those that don't agree with you, right ?
No, I meant the people who posted facts. There is a big, big difference between a fact and rhetoric. Facts are names, dates, specific actions, etc. Rhetoric is inflammatory language (with or without basis in fact).

edit: though, to be fair, the post did contain some content that looked like it should have been factual - it just wasn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #38


so many views one of those calling the u.s to be bigger brothers i had came across a phrase which said that "u should b ashamed "i guess the legitimate people who should be ashamed is the MOCKERY OF PEACE symbol that is the "UNITED NATIONS "i pity those workin with the thoroughly selfish organization of the u.s which tries to shield it's activities through da U.N. military access to many illfated nations whose visas are provided to the U.S. military .it should be destroyed at the earliest of time possible so the no other iraq can be created i beg people of america to get on there feet and to overthrow the tyrannical prez who pays no heed to the mockery we are not away from 3rdww.i wonder if i could possibly make a difference but this kinda thing, seating my butt in front of the p.c. and talking to deaf ears makes my job "sensless" i wish i could do more to my country i feel great that iam not a citizen of a country in which people of same nationality are being killed by there elected "president"through stimulated terrorist attacks ,can some one with all the sense deny the existenz of PNAC ,i guess only if i managed to put fuel to ones thought about the "reality"of the u.s peace process i consider my job done .i may be banned for this !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
I havn't even read your post and I think you should be banned for using such ridiculous language.
 
  • #40
Smurf said:
I havn't even read your post and I think you should be banned for using such ridiculous language.
It's a shame. A post that desires to make a difference on a site peopled by extremely intelligent people should not repeatedly use the expression "dat" in place of the word "that" for anything other than comedy. N dat's a fact.
 
  • #41
I tried reading it but its impossible to make sense out of it without extreme effort. You can't retain information that way.
 
  • #42


to begin with iam sorry for not writing in a legible hand which deprived "the intelligent" people from the information which i was trying to deliver. The point which i was trying to make was that if only people with all there sense working would deny the fact that there was an existence of an organization namely the PNAC which stimulated attacks over the state and the buck was passed over to the terrorist organizations,it's not that america or any other country is not facing the wrath of terrorism but without apt evidence kicking the hell out of a nation which already was helped with much trouble of it own was NOT expected from the great nation. Secondly,the result of which was the children and other non army personnelhad to pick up the guns to "answer the call of duty".The other point which was rendering me sleepless was the fact the american "peace" loving army should have left the states which it has "occupied" once "peace" was restored and could have ordered other nations perhaps may be of the same religion which iraq and afghanistan belong, to conduct the other required activities in this way it could have been the "toast" of the world but i guess the intentions were different
 
  • #43
Alll this is done by US and no one questions it. Must be lucky its the superpower
 
  • #44
is the US really a peace maker ?

No, the US is a peace imposer ... :smile: :smile: :smile:


marlon

why am i the only one laughing now ?
 
  • #45
Back when the first hints of US torture came out, the Canadian who was sent to Turkey to be tortured, and long before the Abu Ghrieb scandal, a blogger called Chun the Unavoidable opined that "We are the lowest of the low'. Everything that has happened since confirms his opinion. The fact that the onlie begetter of the legal opinion that the US president isn't bound by the Geneva Convention and is entitled to order torture if he wishs, is about to be confirmed as the Attorney General, is just more of the same.

I didn't do enough to defeat the evil, I repeat evil, Bush regime in the election, so I bear some guilt for this disgrace.
 
  • #46
:bugeye: selfAdjoint you voted for Bush? Wow...just when I thought I was not even good enough to fetch your slippers, maybe I am good enough to cook your dinner. :-p (Just a post to show I have survived The Number 42 :biggrin: ) I am going to "more-more" (turn in) now.
 
  • #47
selfAdjoint said:
The fact that the onlie begetter of the legal opinion that the US president isn't bound by the Geneva Convention and is entitled to order torture if he wishs, is about to be confirmed as the Attorney General, is just more of the same.
Could you expand on this, I haven't heard anything about that.
Polly said:
selfAdjoint you voted for Bush? Wow...
That post implied to me that maybe he voted for Nader.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top