Foreign Occupation

[twocows]

I'd like to hear what everybody thinks about the US occupation in foreign nations, specifically the Middle East. Personally, I think we never should have interfered to begin with. If there are massive human rights violations, the best way to deal with that is to make it in their best interest to treat people humanely, either through economic sanctions or trade agreements. And unless the situation is like Darfur, where there's mass genocide occurring (which, coincidentally, we've done nothing to stop, as the government apparently no longer considers "mass murdering of a particular group of people" to be genocide), we should keep our military to ourselves.

[Rolina]

Because that's worked SO well in the past, now, hasn't it?

Sorry, I prefer to fight fire with fire.  If you infringe on people's rights, it's only right we infringe on yours.  So if, say, Iran goes and starts doing inhumane things to peoples, it's our job as HUMANS to show them just how that feels.  You liked torturing them because they disagree?  Well, I'll enjoy showing you just what that was like! <3

Oh, just so you know, I have a hard time NOT making fun of people whom still believe that so-called humane treatment works.  You're all for humane until it's personal, trust me.

[Salanewt]

It depends on the situation. For example, I am not sure of any reason why people went to Viet Nam, but I can see the reason for the Korean War.

The longest war that I can think of in the past 100 years has been the Cold War, but there was very little need for that either. That war was only evolved through fear, not over keeping peace.


Have a nice day.

[Rolina]

...North Korea was invading South Korea.  South Korea is an ally.  That's the reason.

Nam was the exact same way.  North Vietnam was invading South Vietnam, an ally.  However, the people of the US at the time were a bunch of Pricks, and we had 0 morale and support as a result.

Isn't it amusing how those people are now our parents, the same morons who now are charging each of us, their children, 100K+ so that they can stay comfy and not feel the effects of the recession as much?

[Salanewt]

...North Korea was invading South Korea. South Korea is an ally. That's the reason.

Nam was the exact same way. North Vietnam was invading South Vietnam, an ally. However, the people of the US at the time were a bunch of Pricks, and we had 0 morale and support as a result.

Isn't it amusing how those people are now our parents, the same morons who now are charging each of us, their children, 100K+ so that they can stay comfy and not feel the effects of the recession as much?

I know that South Korea was and I think still is an ally, and I said that I understood the reason for that war. Now that you have explained it, the Viet Nam war was similar, but I have also heard that the armies were mistreating innocents.

I guess so, except that my family and I are Canadian, so things are a bit different up here. I also remember how Trudeau, one of our more famous Prime Ministers, ticked off one of your presidents by becoming friends with Fidel Castro. Just making an observation, not looking for an argument.



Have a nice day.

[Rolina]

Nah, you misunderstand... it was a few INDIVIDUALS that did those crimes.  But here's the problem... the act of an individual reflects upon the army as a whole.  It didn't matter to the people that it was only one or two rogue soldiers that did that... it destroyed what little support for the war was left here.

Unfortunately, unless we're attacked directly, people here seem to have the attitude of "It doesn't affect me, I want no part in it".  Then something bad happens, and they want blood.  If the president asks for sacrifice, they'll gladly do it (such as after pearl harbor).  BUT... if the president is a moron and asks everyone to go shopping?  They'll go do it... and forget their rage.

I'm sure Canada is no different in this regard.  It is human nature not to selfish and uncaring of others unless it hits close to home.  Apathy or Vendetta, that's what a person's attitude will be 7 times out of 10.

2 times out of 10, this is reversed.  They're a bleeding heart that thinks they have to help anyone and everyone... PETA, for example.  They long to protect my food from my mouth for some stupid reason.  "Save the animals"... yet they go an MURDER all those poor vegetables, growing them just to slaughter them and feast upon the corpses of the fallen produce.  They hear the screams of the meat I eat, yet are deaf the the screams of the vegetables and fruits they eat.  Personally, I like the screams.  It makes the food taste better.  Humans ARE omnivorous, after all.  But their bleeding hearts only work one way...  Another example are all these people who go out to africa to help the natives...  I say leave them to the natural processes of evolution, but oh well.

1 time out of 10 you'll get a good soldier or cop.  They're someone who is selfless, but not a bleeding heart.  They wind up enforcing the law, protecting the people, and fighting against injustice.  WITH OR WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE.  They understand their duty, and will preform it selflessly.  They are the Paladins of the Real World.  People whom should be respected.


Me?  I am one of the 7 of 10.  But I work different than most of them.  I support the 1/10, but could care less to help them.  After all, I'll do the job wrong.  If you're a criminal, I won't be the kind to bring you to justice... I'm the type of person to kill you on the spot.  That's not a good thing for either a Cop or a Soldier to do.  But that's just how I am.  If I don't like you and you die, I don't feel regret or anything.  I laugh and throw a party.  I'm an @#$% like that.  And proud.

However, I am sensible.  I know what works and what does.  It's why I will never seek power -- not only do I really not want it, if I get it, I'll be prone to using it.  As an observer, I can see what works and what doesn't though.  I understand what is necessary, even if I myself won't do it.  For example... If humanity is to survive, we need to continue to evolve.  But... in order to do that, we must give up any sense of ethics.  Modern Medicine after all has destroyed the evolutionary processes -- we're keeping our week alive.  Either immediately pull out of Africa, never give them aid again, and let them evolve the natural way... OR, we play god and employ genetic engineering.  Of course, there's the 'ethical' option, which dooms humanity to stagnation, and thus, extinction, but oh well.

So, that's how I got my views.  And that's why I say an eye for an eye.  The middle eastern nations have violated our nation countless times, so it's our time to violate them.  Europe is intruding on our sovereignty, so it's time we push them around.  After all, if we saved their ungrateful little rears TWICE from killing themselves off.  I say next time they decide to kill each other, LET THEM.  Then claim the ruins of their lands as our own.  Hey, fair's fair.

[Salanewt]

Perfect!

I agree perfectly with you. The only things that I think we should assist in though are things that affect us directly, as a nation(s).

In my opinion, I think Canada has views that are more similar to the United States than, say... Siberia.

I say no to animal cruelty, but meat tastes good. However, I will not eat an animal that is a parent to its young, and I will not eat toxic animals, or animals that I would feel guilty about eating (unfortunately, all but chicken, fish, pig, and cow).

However, In my opinion, the only thing that foreigners should be doing to help developing countries is to help them take care of the children that they have, not create more to kill by starvation.

I hope that these comments enlighten any viewer who reads them.

Have a nice day.