Should the US aid countries revolting against a ruthless goverment?

So for instance, if a country is doing what the nazis did in WW2, should The United States assist a rebellion against the goverment?

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

It depends on too many factors to give a generic answer of yes or no.

If we supported ever rebel force in the world we would be broke and spread too thin to protect our own country.

This makes the US defend only countries that could become potential allies, or create economic growth.

No because it leads to future problems.. like the taliban.

It depends on too many factors to give a generic answer of yes or no.

If we supported ever rebel force in the world we would be broke and spread too thin to protect our own country.

This makes the US defend only countries that could become potential allies, or create economic growth.

Meejoe27

[QUOTE="Meejoe27"]

It depends on too many factors to give a generic answer of yes or no.

If we supported ever rebel force in the world we would be broke and spread too thin to protect our own country.

This makes the US defend only countries that could become potential allies, or create economic growth.

Dr_Brocoli

only if the US has something to gain by it...otherwise, no...however often times when they do aid revolting citizens against an oppressive leadership, they'll let you believe that is the reason, when in reality they are looking into how it could benefit the US, more so than to eradicate a miserable leadership.

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

Ace_WondersX

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

most definately, we should NEVER leave people under oppressive dictators.

You mean like when the Nazis were doing what they were doing and we tried to stay out of it? Or when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and 2/3 of Americans still voted to stay out of the war?blackngold29

[QUOTE="blackngold29"]You mean like when the Nazis were doing what they were doing and we tried to stay out of it? Or when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and 2/3 of Americans still voted to stay out of the war?Kingotoyx

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

St_JimmyX

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

[QUOTE="St_JimmyX"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

Ace_WondersX

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

oh, you mean like all those sanctions we put on Iraq that worked SO FREAKING WELL that we actually had to invade just to enforce them?

The USA is a fundementalist country so as soon as you say there is oil in it they just find the reason to overthrow the government. Instead the USA should stop overthrowing legitimate countries with dictators (Shah in 1958).

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

Ace_WondersX

We're not 'supposed' to be isolationist. Says who?

since the US is the world cop yes.....as long as their is something in it for usweezyfb

Keeping the world afloat is beneficial to us because every country is a potential trade partner. And we really don't have to exploit them either.

The US has intervened in so many causes in the name of bogus Humanitarian reasons, when there were really very Capitalistic motives at stake, the least the US can do is intervene in a truly Humanitarian capacity for once.

No, but they do so when they have something to gain.

The USA is a fundementalist country so as soon as you say there is oil in it they just find the reason to overthrow the government. Instead the USA should stop overthrowing legitimate countries with dictators (Shah in 1958).

King-Saddam

is that a quote from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?

[QUOTE="King-Saddam"]

The USA is a fundementalist country so as soon as you say there is oil in it they just find the reason to overthrow the government. Instead the USA should stop overthrowing legitimate countries with dictators (Shah in 1958).

jJaAmMeEsS2184

is that a quote from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

St_JimmyX

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

What about the Armenians? or...

Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995

[QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

[QUOTE="King-Saddam"]

The USA is a fundementalist country so as soon as you say there is oil in it they just find the reason to overthrow the government. Instead the USA should stop overthrowing legitimate countries with dictators (Shah in 1958).

King-Saddam

is that a quote from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?

ok I didn't think he would say something like that..

the US didn't overthrow the Shah..the Shah was not a dictatorship..it was a monarchy..and it was the revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini that forced Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power and into exile..if it were up to the US, they would prefer the Shah stay in power..but they didn't do anything to stop the revolution..therefore many Iranians from both sides resent the US for it...the ones who supported the Shah, believe the US could have intervened and possibly stop the revolt...supporters of the Ayatollah hated the West backing the Shah (basically)..

[QUOTE="King-Saddam"][QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

is that a quote from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?

jJaAmMeEsS2184

ok I didn't think he would say something like that..

the US didn't overthrow the Shah..the Shah was not a dictatorship..it was a monarchy..and it was the revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini that forced Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power and into exile..if it were up to the US, they would prefer the Shah stay in power..but they didn't do anything to stop the revolution..therefore many Iranians from both sides resent the US for it...the ones who supported the Shah, believe the US could have intervened and possibly stop the revolt...supporters of the Ayatollah hated the West backing the Shah (basically)..

Seeing how many ruthless governments the US has installed, I don't think it'll happen too much. The US military acts for the benefits of their own people (or, better said, corporations), not for the sake of any other people. The NATO is for protecting people. The US military does overthrow dictators too of course, but it doesn't do it because of any humanitarian reasons.

The US should concentrate on sorting out it's own internal issues (of which there are MANY) first, before worrying about poking its nose in the rest of the worlds business.

hell yea

i mean, why not? Its for a good cause, and if they win, we got a country in our pocket for future favors.

Depends on if the coin lands on heads or tails.

The U.S. should do whatever is most advantageous to the U.S.

I don't think we should be aiding anyone. No one pays us back, no one shows gratitude, and then only complain about us 'sticking our noses into other's business'.FragStains

They should help the Germans revolt against their government. Censoring the internet and video games? Please. Australia needs some spanking with regards to video game censorship as well.

[QUOTE="St_JimmyX"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

shoot-first

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

What about the Armenians? or...

Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995

he said balkans^, you both forgot Darufr. the danm US gov only helps out when there is something to gain, not when its just doing the right thing and defending poeple that are truly defenseless( all teh genocides listed^)

I thin we should. I could go on and on about how and why we should use Private armed forces to do just that.( ill refrain from it) ill just say, go watch

" Soldiers for Hire" and check out Executive Outcomes work in Angola and in the costal town of Soyo.

infact Soyo, is a perfect example of how small professional forces do far more than armies of UN peacekeepers do( which is nothing). A few hundred EO operatives did more in Soyo than 17,000 UN peacekeepers did afterwards( not to mention the arimes the people used before they hired EO)

No, the US isn't the world's babysitter. guynamedbilly

They like to think they are though.

Historically, the US has aided dictatorial govenments if they benefit the US and aided rebels if the authorities are against US interest. Of course, in retrospect, many of these were short-term and had averse consequences. The US has a tendency to only look for instant and short term gains and not think of the long term consequences.

Examples include:

Spanish-American War, support of Chiang Kai-Shek in China, spurning Castro and supporting the unpopular Batista government, installing the Shah in Iran, not aiding Ho Chi Minh against the French Empire, aiding the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, the Iran-Contra Affair and supporting Saddam in the Iraq-Iran War.

Each of these had short term gains for the US but in the long term came back to hurt it. There hasn't been any indication that it would be any different now.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]I don't think we should be aiding anyone. No one pays us back, no one shows gratitude, and then only complain about us 'sticking our noses into other's business'.Failtard

Oh, and I forgot to mention - by american "aid" you of course mean invading the country, bombing it, and bringing the ultimate gift - democracy. Brilliant "aid" right there.

In principle, yes absolutely, as long as it is done responsibly. You don't want to be in a position where the bastards you helped get into office are no better or worse than the bastards you kicked out.

[QUOTE="St_JimmyX"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

No, we're suppose to be isolationist.

The Nazi were a one time thing that I don't think could happen again.

Ace_WondersX

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="St_JimmyX"]

Rwanda, Cambodia, and the Balkans?

Ontain