Is the U.S. Truly a Global Peacemaker?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gravedigger
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of the United States as a global peacemaker, examining its foreign policy actions and their implications. Participants explore various perspectives on U.S. military interventions, the legitimacy of its government, and the consequences of its actions in different countries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the fairness of labeling the U.S. as a global peacemaker, citing military actions and interventions that may contradict this image.
  • Others argue that blaming the U.S. populace for the actions of their elected officials is not entirely fair, especially considering the number of voters who opposed the current administration.
  • A participant highlights the historical context of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the U.S. has often acted in its own interests rather than for global peace.
  • Concerns are raised about the U.S. military presence in foreign elections, with some suggesting that it undermines the legitimacy of those elections.
  • One participant lists numerous historical actions by the U.S. that they believe contribute to global instability, including military invasions and support for dictatorships.
  • Another participant points out the significant foreign aid provided by the U.S. government and its citizens, noting the complexities of these contributions.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of insurgents and the implications of U.S. military actions in Iraq, with some asserting that the U.S. has played a role in creating the conditions for terrorism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the U.S.'s role as a peacemaker. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of U.S. actions and their motivations, as well as the implications for global stability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the motivations behind U.S. foreign policy and the definitions of terms like "insurgents." Participants reference historical events and political contexts that may not be universally agreed upon.

  • #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 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.