The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
Liberation of countries by West
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
The question is: Liberation or Pure Conquering (Destruction is better phrase)?
Freedom to die...
If we were to look at its effects instead of the politics, we see a removal of forces that are dangerous and the restoration of peace to a degree.
If we look at it politically, yes the USA is destroying their nation, at least if we look at the damage. I am unsure if any attempt has been made to create some sort of government and establish a military of natives, but that would be a lot better in my opinion.
Furthermore, the OpFor are aggressive and radical in nature. Their goals are to spread their ideology to the world by force. I do not condone most of the acts of the USA, support them or otherwise.
But to to put it very bluntly (and likely offensively, sorry) its a good thing they are there to die instead of us.
Reasoning: As a superpower, its their responsibility among other reasons.
The U.S. has tried to set up militaries and aid in government rebuilding in the countries we have invaded.
The success of these efforts is yet unknown- if the nations survive then i guess it worked.
should it have been done? I cant say, I have a brother who was in afganistan (before all the recent violence) and he talk of how happy they were to have us there.
Of course now they dont and i cant blame them- we have become occupiers. luckily we will be out soon, and the American people have made it quite clear we are tried of bleeding for others. we dont want to get involved in any more middle eastern ground wars, or any conflicts for that matter.
Right now it would take a direct attack on either ourselves or a close ally (like say south korea) to get the U.S. to commit troops in force.
They're not conquered. The definition of conquered is 'To overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force'. That has occured but 'Western' countries are not staying there indefinately. They have been 'temporarily occupied'. 'Western' forces aren't just killing them though. I know that the British army for one is helping rebuild infrastructure like roads and markets that were destroyed by the taliban or 'OpFor'.
they just bomb "100,000 die and more" them then set them free
I am friends with a kid from Iraq and he isn't happy with what the US did to his country. Iraq was quite powerful before the US kicked it to pieces, and stole what they could. mostly oil, also my friend also said how their new ruler is a complete US puppet. overall my friend is quite well educated:D
I think it's liberations, and ultimately a good thing. I would like to see more focus on reorganizing their nations rather than taking their resources, however in the long run I think it shall be beneficial. Perhaps rather than direct invasions though, we could focus on supplying resistance forces instead so they could wage their own war.
There are many claims it's done for profit- I am skeptical of this, for every war since WWII has just murdered the American economy and its spirit. I truly think the United States for once has its heart in the right place (well, sort of, its still greedy at times) but its execution could be better. In the end, despite the claims of the U.S. needing to mind its own business, I believe it's the duty of the superpowers to help uplift the less fortunate nations- and I think it's given it a good shot. Recently that is, not the anti-communist measures of earlier days ("Let's remove that pesky communist leader of the people and replace him with a ruthless dictator who just EVERYBODY loves! That should work!")
"heart in the right place" oh dear lord like Hiroshima
As unfortunate as it may be, morality has little place in politics. The grand speeches made by the oh-so-humanitarian leaders are nearly always a mask for a more nefarious and questionable agenda. The Iraq war was almost entirely about securing oil reserves and scoring brownie points with America's oil suppliers. The government rattles off about the "oppressive regime of their enemy" when their allies' agenda is usually far worse. Take note, this doesn't only apply to the USA, this applies to any large, bureaucratic government system. At the rate the world's going, I'm beginning to see why some people prefer anarchy and isolation (big hand to ComradeWinston and others) to a modern government.
The whole entire point of the U.S. being in the Middle East is to build more oil rigs and since Iran doesn't want us in their country, we like to accuse them of having nuclear weapons.