Discussion » Current Events » Why America can't Just concentrate on their ow

  • Beijing JieNa Jiao Yu
    Beijing JieNa Jiao Yu wrote:
    <p><span>TRIPOLI, Libya&nbsp;&mdash; </span>A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction .. bla bla bla</p> <p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001</a></p> <p>I am wondering why American cant just settle their domestic&nbsp; / economic woes first before fighting for others?</p>
  • Matt S
    Matt S wrote:

    How about we change the question a little bit:

    Why is China ok with authoritarian dictators killing thousands and thousands of their own people?

    There we go. That's better.

  • Matt S
    Matt S wrote:

    Btw there is a very interesting and nuanced discussion to be had here on different countries' view of the use and limits of national power.

    I just think the chances of that happening are about 0. So, I troll.

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    It pisses me off when people paraphrase conflicts and then use that as a justification for their response, such as 'We don't want another Iraq' or 'This is exactly like Afghanistan'. It's not, and you lose any credibility when you deal in obscure statements like that and not with the conflict itself. 

    I'm incredibly happy intervention has finally come after weeks of media coverage detailing the targetting of civilian areas, the broadcasts of their leader stating his intention to go 'door-to-door' and cleanse the country of the Al Qaeda terrorists (terrorists translates as 'those that oppose him') and the deployment of heavy weaponry (tanks and bombings) and outside mercenaries in major cities.

    I don't have any problem with China's or Russia's position (that the internal affairs of other countries shouldn't be interfered with) and I don't expect every country in the world to be enthusiastic about sending their military assets to protect a foreign people. What I do have a problem with is when people frame the current intervention as an exercise in imperialism (democracy) or capitalism (oil) and cite former conflicts to reinforce their position. It just comes off as incredibly ignorant.  

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    And re: the nuanced discussion: I think this conflict is easier to frame in terms of a moral imperative to protect those that are unable to protect themselves in the face of overwhelming and brutal force. There is a critical point (we can't go into every country that has abuses...most countries do engage in various abuses of human rights), but I think the Libyan conflict has escalated far beyond that point which is why intervention has come. 

    An easier way of thinking about this is helping a pregnant woman that's being beaten up by her boyfriend in the street. There are arguments for and against but I think the call for action in that situation is a moral imperative, and that's how I regard the Libyan situation, irrespective of who is intervening and for what reasons. 

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @DESPERADO, Then I suggest you stay quiet while grown-ups are talking. Now is not the time for petty nationalistic banter.

    I'll have you and the OP reminded that France took the initiative in enforcing the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone, and it likely was not without considerable restraint that US military leaders would allow a bunch of sissy-assed continentals to take point, but I assume it's because the Americans are all too fat to do anything other than lob cruise missiles from the safety of an aircraft carrier.

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    hey, OP, this IS their own problem OK? Their military needs timely "real world" practice, and depreciates their military assets quicker, so that the weaponry industry can keep on making profit to support politicians. And you know, the US is a democratic country, the gov needs to keep the most of people happy. Generally the US population makes up with three kinds of people: hippies in Cali, smugs in the north-east, and rednecks in the rest part. The gov. needs to make smugs happy by providing them constant feeling of moral correctness and superiority, and make sure that those rednecks can still find evidence that the US military is still awesome. Ummm, that's it, so how can you say that it's not their own problem? even tho I didn't mention the fucking stuff everyone loves: crude oil :)

    btw, Ghadafi is a dictator and should be cracked. China should also send a couple of fighter-bombers to throw sth like cluster bomb on their territory~

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    I strongly opposed the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but this situation seems different. Here we have a good chunk of the world saying this needs to happen, not just some American contractors trying to make a quick buck at everyone else's expense.

    I don't know what the standard should be for invading another country or interfering in one's civil war, but international concensus seems like a good place to start. The invasion having the hgh probability of improving the situation for the vast majority of the locals would be another obvious standard. All cleanup and infrastructure work going to local contracts would also be mandatory in my book.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Life is going. Thankfully no one's invading my country to overthrow our unsupported despotic dictatorship.

    The US didn't claim Saddam had nuclear weapons. What they did instead was invent a term "weapons of mass destruction" which grouped chemical weapons like mustard gas together with nuclear weapons. They knew there was no possibility that Iraq had nuclear material, but they used the very small possibility that there was mustard gas somewhere to trick some of the public into fearing "WMD's" under the false association with nuclear weapons.

    I sure don't trust the U.S. to make those kind of decisions, but I do feel better about this one since it was made by the entire U.N. I don't think Obama is interested in breaking international law the way little Bush was.

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    The not responding to violence with violence thing goes way back to the Biblical doctrine of 'giving the other cheek' to someone who hits you...but Jesus didn't have to account for your cheek being blown off by heavy artillery. It's a weak concept anyway and simply doesn't work in the face of overwhelming force: basically what you're suggesting is people lay down and die, and hope that the ones using violence have some moral epiphany and rehabilitate themselves. 

    Also, let's be clear: the 'West' waited for the go-ahead from the Arab League and the African Union. Those guys are now starting to complain a bit but the main reason for involvement and the main reason China and Russia abstained from the vote rather than vetoing the resolution is that countries in the region also wanted it. Going back to the original news-article at the beginning of this post: the Libyan rebels and civilians in that area of Benghazi lined up to shake the hand of the pilot who crashed landed, which for me is pretty telling considering how hostile that region of the world is to intervention from the West. 

    And what kind of argument is 'The West sold him the weapons, they should let him use them?'. 

    I don't really understand what people that use this argument expected: you guys complain when you think the West is taking a stand against dictators (which by the way, this is not!), and you complain when the West negotiates with the dictators instead. Just because you don't like a regime doesn't stop you from needing what they're selling, and the idea that you could just not buy oil from North Africa and the Middle-East is surely the product of some kind of Magical Christmas Land thinking. 

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    ahhhh...well, the thing for me is quite simple: all the ONES using violence have not reached moral epiphany yet~

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    wowow~~ more and more Chinese realize now that Japanese are not devils just because their great grandpas are devils (long and complicated topic of coz), dudes in the US still believe what their country is doing and did are purely heroic just because what their great grandpas did was heroic?

    btw, I think the USA waited too long to join WWII is because your great grandpas thought the axis had no interest in invading the US right?

    Come on, tell me the reason why the US joined in the WWII AT THE VERY BEGINNING! To save people's life in Asia and Europe???

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    Chinese should be grateful to the heroic act from the US some 70 years ago. (Again, the main reason for such a heroic act is not to "save Chinese people")

    And, the time has changed. it's 21th century, Lybia is not Japan or Nazi, and the US is not that US any longer~

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Desperado, I would call you if I was in Beijing. I'm still in the states. It will be a while before I go back.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Da Fan, "Come on, tell me the reason why the US joined in the WWII AT THE VERY BEGINNING! To save people's life in Asia and Europe???"

    America saved Western Europe from the Nazis Soviets.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    That plane that crashed? Six villagers were shot when they rescued the pilot. Fortunately no one died, but some kid might get a limb amputated.

    Fuck my country. Fuck my country so hard.

  • Simen Wangberg

    "I will be really appreciate if USA still focuses on China's human rights and censorship, so that I can use my Gmail without any problem, and say hi to my Facebook friends in three years."

    I wholeheartedly support a unilateral Google invasion. Liberate us from tyranny! And let me look at stupid shit on YouTube when I'm supposed to be working.

  • Kodi
    Kodi wrote:

    Reallity check everyone! 

    International politics not about people, its about money and power.

    Governments protect their own people before they protect others because a countries constituancy is its main source of income.

    The only reason for any country to become involved in another country is for its own political/economic interests.

    The part that sucks is that governments don't suffer because it is a heartless/emotionless entity.  The ones who suffere are the people effected by policy. 

    Sad sad sad.....but please show me eveidence to the contrary. 

    Thats why i consider myself an internatioonal citizen and i pledge alegiance to no flag.  I pledge alegiance to human kind!

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    Arne: Way to decontextualise! Do you think it's reasonable to expect someone to approach a sentence you wrote in a message that was largely coming out against Western intervention in Libya, in a thread criticising American intervention in Libya, as isolated from a Pro/Anti intervention stance? 

    re: the propping up of Gadaffi: again, I ask, what world are you living in where Western countries can easily procure oil from countries without dictatorships or regimes we don't have a problem with? The choice is to negotiate with regimes we don't like for the things we want or remove the regimes we don't like and take the things we want. How successful do you think a policy of 'Deal only with people I/We like'  can be? 

  • Marte Joahansen

    Matt S wrote:

    Posted 2 days ago

    How about we change the question a little bit:

    Why is China ok with authoritarian dictators killing thousands and thousands of their own people?

    There we go. That's better.

     

    Matt..

    The fact that you could communicate doesn't mean America is not fcuking up right now. Get your listening skills upgraded and then hear what the world says.

     

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahaha ... skimmed through most of this ... there is an old Hong Kong saying ...

    Find a mirror and stare at it, if you dont have a mirror, find a bucket of water, if you dont have a bucket of water, take a piss ...

  • 王经纬
    王经纬 wrote:

    "US saved asian countries"!!??

    Hilarious!!!! Only they think that way maybe!!!

    well, I was wondering who is the next so called dictator after Ghadafi ??Which country will be bombed  after Libya? It is an on-going process, isnt it?

  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    Phuck america

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)
  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    we make sex easier.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha ... that's why I ask, is it considered "spamming" ... or perhaps just advertising or promotion? I lack the intelligence to speak, so I think I will give this a miss ...

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha ... just a bit strange that you started a fairly sensitive topic without giving any of your opinion, but instead, "inviting" people to visit your website if they want to improve their English, when most people on this thread are fairly "native" ... or maybe it is just me ...

     

     

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha... so you had used many intelligent people to discuss about a topic, while trying to bring someone to your site? That's nice PR ...

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    It's come to my attention that some of the well funded (public) schools pay competitive salaries for graduates from the top name schools in the U.S. It therefore seems worthwhile for those career expat teacher types to go get confirmed fake diplomas from the top Ivy League schools instead of making a couple hundred rmb/hour at these English institutes.

  • Albulena Imeri
    Topic change: From American Imperialism to white, native-English-speaking dudes who cannot even speak the business English language right.
  • Kodi
    Kodi wrote:

    Somebody is sore about something.......

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha ... yes, and "somebody" is forced to go to the gym again ...

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc