Should U.S. Dictate Policies to Other Countries?

davesmom

Council Member
Oct 11, 2015
2,084
0
36
Southern Ontario
On CNN tonight concerns were expressed that under the Trump Administration the U.S. would back away from defending human rights in other countries.
The way I see it, as horrible as human rights are in some countries they ARE sovereign countries and can make their own laws. If they want better human rights it is up to their citizenry to bring about change.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interests to interfere.
The U.N. has a human rights commission and it is headed by leaders of countries with the worst human rights. What does that say?
What do you think?
 

Ludlow

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 7, 2014
13,588
0
36
wherever i sit down my ars
On CNN tonight concerns were expressed that under the Trump Administration the U.S. would back away from defending human rights in other countries.
The way I see it, as horrible as human rights are in some countries they ARE sovereign countries and can make their own laws. If they want better human rights it is up to their citizenry to bring about change.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interests to interfere.
The U.N. has a human rights commission and it is headed by leaders of countries with the worst human rights. What does that say?
What do you think?
It's too late.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,209
4,742
113
Olympus Mons
Back away? What a joke. US corporations profiting from child labour and wage slavery. Selling weapons and military equipment to countries with horrendous human rights records. Yeah, I'd back away from that kind of defense of human rights too. In fact, I'd want to put a whole lot of distance between myself and that kind of human rights policy.
And in 2016, over 26,000 bombs were dropped on 7 different countries resulting in mostly civilians casualties. Man, with "friends" like that, who needs enemas?
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
On CNN tonight concerns were expressed that under the Trump Administration the U.S. would back away from defending human rights in other countries.
The way I see it, as horrible as human rights are in some countries they ARE sovereign countries and can make their own laws. If they want better human rights it is up to their citizenry to bring about change.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interests to interfere.
The U.N. has a human rights commission and it is headed by leaders of countries with the worst human rights. What does that say?
What do you think?
Well yes..........

Trump’s approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it’s because they don’t want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn’t understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington’s iron grip on global power.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/149362-so-what-harper-doing-india.html

They are the Great Satan


TAL ABTA, Iraq — Abu Luay once battled US troops as a teenager in a series of ugly urban battles. Now the 27-year-old says he’s ready to sacrifice his family to fight the Americans again if the US follows through on President Donald Trump’s suggestion on Saturday to take his country’s oil.

“I participated in the attack against the Americans by attacking them with mortars and roadside bombs, and I’m ready to do it again,” said Abu Luay, an Iraqi security official who provided his nom de guerre and said he was not allowed to speak to the press. His is now fighting along the frontlines with armed Shiite groups in northwest Iraq. “We kept our ammunition and weapons from the time the Americans left for fighting ISIS. But once ISIS is gone we will save our weapons for the Americans.”

Abu Luay and others spoke to BuzzFeed News one day after Trump made a series of explosive remarks to CIA employees — including suggesting that Americans should have taken Iraq’s oil and floating the possibility of seizing the Middle East country’s primary export and natural resource at some point in the future.

“If we kept the oil, you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place,” Trump told CIA employees in a speech broadcast on television. “So we should have kept the oil, but, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

Trump argued repeatedly during the campaign last year that the US should have taken Iraq’s oil. His statement Saturday came a day after his inauguration as the 45th US president, a day on which his new administration declared that its top priority is defeating ISIS jihadis in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other countries.

Trump’s assertion that Iraqi oil led to the creation of ISIS does not square with facts. ISIS was formed out of several jihadi and nationalist rebel groups that sprang up in Iraq after the US invasion, eventually taking root in Syria amid the chaos of that country’s civil war. Oil became an important component of ISIS’s finances shortly after it was formed and mostly in Syria. ISIS financing sources include oil and oil products as well as taxes, tolls, and kidnappings for ransom.

Iraqis at this tiny outpost near the front lines of the ISIS battle warn that any attempt by the US to seize their oil would destabilize the country, and the region, and possibly undermine the war against ISIS that Trump has described as a top priority.

“There’s no way Trump could take the oil unless he launched a new military front and it be a new world war,” said Kareem Kashekh, a photographer who works for the Popular Mobilization Units, a new branch of Iraq’s armed forces consisting of former militiamen and volunteers fighting against ISIS.

“He cannot do it. He cannot succeed,” said Dawoud Ali, a 30-year-old Baghdad resident and a member of Ansar al-Aghida, one of the Shiite militias fighting against ISIS. “Of course I would fight the Americans if they came for the oil.”

Trump’s comments risk relations with a key player in the US-led war against ISIS. Iraq is currently the primary US partner in the war against ISIS, with the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and members of the country’s various sectarian and ethnic communities fighting the jihadi group.

Sitting inside a small house used as a base for reporters covering the Popular Mobilization’s efforts against ISIS, some suggested seizing Iraqi’s oil would be counter-productive, noting that Iraq recently took a $5.3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund in part to help pay for the war against ISIS.

Short of war, they said, Trump could use international institutions and courts to divert Iraq’s oil money to the US instead of outright seizing it. “They are the Great Satan,” said Ali, the Shiite fighter. “If they cooperate with the central government maybe they can succeed in taking the oil.”

But that, too, could backfire as Iraqis would likely respond by electing a hardliner like former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is considered close to Iran and is favored by Shiite armed groups close to Tehran, they said. Many critics say Maliki’s sectarian policies helped ISIS take root in Iraq’s Sunni communities.

“If they came with lawyers, maybe they could get away with taking our oil money with a weak person like Abadi, but if we have a strong person like Maliki, it wouldn’t work,” said Hussam Abdel-Wahed, 25, and a member of the Popular Mobilization’s media office.

“We will kick out all of the corrupted politicians,” said Abu Luay. “We now have a wide base and we will go to the ballot boxes. We will use bombs and explosives, and we’ll also go to the ballot boxes if that’s what it takes.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudara...t-try-to-seize?utm_term=.ohKBloEwn#.ov9lqJ4xe
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
On CNN tonight concerns were expressed that under the Trump Administration the U.S. would back away from defending human rights in other countries.
The way I see it, as horrible as human rights are in some countries they ARE sovereign countries and can make their own laws. If they want better human rights it is up to their citizenry to bring about change.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interests to interfere.
The U.N. has a human rights commission and it is headed by leaders of countries with the worst human rights. What does that say?
What do you think?



I agree, it's not up to the US, or anyone else, to dictate what other countries can do. The world would be a better place if we all stayed out of foreign countries' internal affairs.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,748
4,760
113
Washington DC
Back away? What a joke. US corporations profiting from child labour and wage slavery. Selling weapons and military equipment to countries with horrendous human rights records. Yeah, I'd back away from that kind of defense of human rights too. In fact, I'd want to put a whole lot of distance between myself and that kind of human rights policy.
And in 2016, over 26,000 bombs were dropped on 7 different countries resulting in mostly civilians casualties. Man, with "friends" like that, who needs enemas?
I suppose we could bomb Canada. Wouldn't want y'all to feel left out.

I agree, it's not up to the US, or anyone else, to dictate what other countries can do. The world would be a better place if we all stayed out of foreign countries' internal affairs.
Define "dictate."
 

davesmom

Council Member
Oct 11, 2015
2,084
0
36
Southern Ontario
George W Bush tried to promote democracy around the world under the premise that 'democratic countries don't fight each other'.
However all countries don't want democracy. Promoting it to them only angers them.
Think how missionaries went to Africa and promoted Christianity or how Catholics tried to convert the Indians in their schools. None of that came to any good.
It's probably best to leave other societies to live as they do. Promoting one's beliefs/lifestyles indicates that you think only your way is the right way. It may be right for you but not for others.
Live and let live is a good policy to follow.
 

Remington1

Council Member
Jan 30, 2016
1,469
0
36
After WWII, the UK/US Agreement sated that that as 'the' super power, the US would protect the flow of goods and money. Some countries, if left unchecked and unmonitored would disrupt the world flow. Allies (Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, etc..) depend on the US for protection/safety, but in return turn their heads on certain US policies. I'm sure though that the US could lessen some of their influence on some countries, which border interfering.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
I suppose we could bomb Canada. Wouldn't want y'all to feel left out.
Define "dictate."

we make great rye whiskey and hi powered beers
we can get bombed ourselves without your help

If you are talkin the american foreign policy of the years since Kennedy was rubbed out by the CIA: the word would be "DICKtate"

...and BTW
don't drop any obombas on the cottage country around georgian bay...
because all you will kill would be Americans on their summer vacations
:)
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
On CNN tonight concerns were expressed that under the Trump Administration the U.S. would back away from defending human rights in other countries.
The way I see it, as horrible as human rights are in some countries they ARE sovereign countries and can make their own laws. If they want better human rights it is up to their citizenry to bring about change.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interests to interfere.
The U.N. has a human rights commission and it is headed by leaders of countries with the worst human rights. What does that say?
What do you think?

I do not believe that any US administration has ever cared about human rights in places like the ME or SE Asia. I do not believe they feel the US is obligated to "fight for human rights" anywhere but within their borders. That said, they are a powerful nation, dependent on raw materials and products from other countries. To ensure a steady flow of supplies, it is necessary to get involved outside their borders from time to time.

I doubt that any US president has ever cared that the Arabs eat babies or whip children. No one in Washington gets in a lather about most SE Asian countries selling boys and girls under 16 for sex or slavery. Oh, they might say something to the cameras, but no one truly cares.

I wouldn't worry too much about a CNN debate. It must have been a slow news night. They actually gave a cautious thumbs up about the Trump administration's performance yesterday. Like all good toadies, they will smarten up, or be devoured by their political masters.
 

Highball

Council Member
Jan 28, 2010
1,170
1
38
In my opinion all nations are a souverain entity unto themselves. We have no business sticking the US nose into another nation's business.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,748
4,760
113
Washington DC
I wouldn't worry too much about a CNN debate. It must have been a slow news night. They actually gave a cautious thumbs up about the Trump administration's performance yesterday. Like all good toadies, they will smarten up, or be devoured by their political masters.
I wouldn't worry about CNN being "devoured by their political masters" seeing as how Fox is still going strong after eight years of the Obama administration.
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
They have already been chewed up, and have learned from that. Upper echelons at CNN will continue to offer "unbiased reporting", but they know who is in the WH. You do not have to be put out of business to be minimized.