Is the United States a Police State? (Page 10)

Bumpa
Bumpa: From what I have seen, USA would qualify as a police state but I must also agree with Kathy cool... USA is most definitely the most militaristic state ever on earth. One can only guess how many millions of innocent lives have been destroyed by the American military over the last century. Starting with Spain in 1814 through Mexico, most other central American states, Asia;( Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, Japan, Korea) USA invades any country which has some resource (usually oil) it wants to take. Some other countries it has invaded merely because it didn't like the colour of their politics eg: Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua. Now it is the Middle East: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. I've probably missed a few but you get the message.
America is without a doubt the world's arch terrorist.
12 years ago Report
0
Blackeyedbabe
(Post deleted by staff 12 years ago)
Massivepanic
Massivepanic: POLICE STATE??? TOTALLY RIGHT!
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

And who is the president and his beliefs are what?

.
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: dosent really matter were you are from,you dont come correct,get too stepping,yes i am a nosey pushy american,so what!im from gods green earth just like you...tell it too the immagrants crying @ the boarder trying to get in for our almighty highest currency in the world,country...bank on that!
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: screw the damn popo straight like that! usa a police state?ha?you serious?
you ever lived here?you ever pay a tax here?you have too shuffle and vote amoung fools for other foolish men and thier damn polotix!uggghhh!
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: here wew are trying to help ya ass and you shit on us!?wtf?
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: how you gonna pop shit ,hump and roll on us for imprisoning our thief,diddler,killahs or what have you?maybe we should try your method and let all the crazy people span the globe,shit you can have a bin ladan in your country if you want,but you cross that boarder,we shooting,dipp the pop in donkey doo,im shouting out for my nyc peoples!dont get it twisted! 9hold ya tongue tightly ,wish you could be like me,poppin all that mentally disstress just too test me...but i dont care,too high for your business!
12 years ago Report
0
sebtheanimal
sebtheanimal: The answer to the main question is YES.
The USA is turning ever more so into a police state.
Already it is the police of the world.
Kill me now but I'd rather have it this way than ANY, I repeat, ANY other nation try to be it.
12 years ago Report
0
Spiceworld
Spiceworld: Should the US intervene in other countries’ politics? It’s a tough question and one where I don’t find I have an easy answer.

One the one hand, as a global power, the US could be in a position to protect the interests of people around the world who may be oppressed by their governments. On the other hand – on what authority? Theoretically, support of the United Nations (or at least a majority) could give such interventions legitimacy, but on the other hand it breaks away from the principal of sovereign states having the power to make their own decisions. Perhaps it’s easier to condone interventions in the case of mass genocide, but what about religion and the rights of women… it’s kind of a slippery slope – at what point does it become imposing US values on other nations?

As a woman, I am extremely grateful for the rights and freedoms that I enjoy living in the US. And I would hate to live somewhere that those rights were curtailed or revoked. But at the same time, I have to consider the counter-arguments that these freedoms result in a break-down of family values and the long-run repercussions on society. Looking at the riots in the UK, I can’t help but wonder why society standards degenerated. Perhaps stay-at-home mums and strong family units wouldn’t avoid that sort of break down, but it does make me wonder what is going wrong and whether we should be inflicting our western values on other countries before we have a good handle on their long-term implications…

Looking more broadly at interventions, I think this thread has covered well the gray area of whether the intentions are altruistic. I personally don’t think that a good deed done for self-benefit is less of a good deed… interventions whether through military or economic means are expensive. If the US is using tax-payer money to pay for this, there really ought to be a benefit to the US. Whether that is a direct benefit (for example trade in an important commodity such as oil) or an indirect benefit such as global stability. In fact, the question of ‘what’s in it for us’ is a key consideration when trying to encourage emerging countries to step up and do their share for global development. The sticky part is how these interventions are viewed – if the benefit is one-sided or imposing western values onto other countries then it’s going to result in hatred and ultimately retaliation (9/11). To that extent the effort will be undermined…

Which brings me to current wars - I take the point of Caveman that this thread isn’t about Afghanistan, at the same time it’s hard not to reflect on this intervention in considering what the US involvement in global politics should be. On the one hand, I support our troops and the sacrifices they are making to fight this war, and I also worry about the de-stabilizing effect of their withdrawal. On the other hand, the Soviet Union spent years in Afghanistan and made no progress. I worry that the extraordinary cost of this war may not be met with commiserate benefits to either the Afghanis or global stability. Their religion and culture is so different from our western values that I fear that US intervention may not be effective in the long-run and may actually increase hatred and mistrust.

For myself, I don’t think that I can either condone or condemn global interventionism by the US. I think that it depends on the situation. Sadly, I think regular people seldom know enough of the facts upfront to judge the merits, and even with hind sight, it’s hard to say whether the result is better or worse. One thing I am sure of – I feel saver with the US as the global superpower than I might feel if it was North Korea or Iran (or Afghanistan). But I suspect they might feel the opposite is true and while that mistrust continues, global stability will always be fragile at best, and wishful thinking at worst.
12 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: USA the world police? I don't think so. America will only do what is best for America, it will only move into another country if there is something to be gained for America.
The greed of America is truly phenomenal! 5% of the world's population consuming 65% of the world's resources.... that's food, water, oil, electricity, everything! When American people start economising/ recycling and eating a bit less there will be no need for America to invade other countries and take their resources, perhaps then we could have some peace.
12 years ago Report
0
sebtheanimal
sebtheanimal: Bumpa you make no sense. American's don't have to apologize for their many years of progress and development to anyone, much less to you. It's some current trend to try and put the USA down and blame it for one's own misfortunes and goes to reveal the ignorance of of the various other nations and regimes. You cannot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.
12 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Seb, I'm sorry you don't understand plain English. I'll make it simpler for you.
USA is the greediest country the world has ever known. It is also the most warlike, responsible for killing millions of innocent civilians worldwide. It has ruined the economies of many other nations by invading them, taking their resource and setting up puppet dictators who will bow to its will, Marcos in the Philippines is one, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, Pol Pot in Cambodia.... The list goes on.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Bumpa needs to go to the website for USAID and look at the countries the US is providing billions, and billions, and billions, and billions of USD in agriculture, medical and other aid for these countries. Yes, there have been issues and perhaps abuses but the issues Bumpa posted happened decades ago. Recently, there has been no country on the planet that has provided more aid to the poor souls in Somalia and that region than the United States of America.

.
12 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Does a bit of aid bring back the millions murdered by the US military David? Also, the abuses continue in the Middle East and Philippines at least, probably others as well
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Bumpa said:....millions "murdered" by the US military

David responds: Can you tell me where these killing fields are located? Documentation? Millions is a lot of bodies.

Bumpa said: the abuses continue in the Middle East and Philippines at least, probably others as well

David responds:American troops are murdering in the Middle East and Philippines? Who are these people you say the US Military is murdering?

.
12 years ago Report
0
Blackeyedbabe
(Post deleted by staff 12 years ago)
davidk14
davidk14: .

America invaded the Philippines in 1947??????

After the Americans "liberated" the Philippines during WW2, American Marines continued to fight and hunt down Japanese soldiers that refused to surrender once Japan surrendered which continued until 1949. SInce then, the vast majority of the population of the Philippines have supported America and the Americans that are based there.

Now the question, should the US leave the Philippines is very complicated since radical fundamentalism has taken root in your country and the current government has asked for and is being supported by American assets.


Regarding the fishing issue, there are numerous countries fishing in the area you are speaking about including Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and China besides the US since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has not yet resolved ownership disputes in the South China Sea.

The 1982 convention created a number of guidelines concerning the status of islands, continental shelves, exclusive economic zones (EEZ), enclosed seas, and territorial limits. UNCLOS states that countries with overlapping claims must resolve them by good faith negotiation.

Competing territorial claims over the South China Sea and its resources are numerous, with claims for various areas by Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for claims to areas of the ocean to be made using a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and/ or the continental shelf principle.


The Philippines claim a sizeable portion of the South China Sea and occupy eight of the Spratly Islands (Kalayaan in Filipino). The Philippines do not claim the Paracel Islands.
Filipino claims are based upon the EEZ and continental shelf principle, as well as a 1956 Filipino explorer’s expedition.


So until the UN Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes a determination, fishing will continue by the US and the other nations you did not mention. It is not American ‘imperialism’ as you suggest.

Edit: sources, internet

Edit: Not to mention Japan and China are the leading consumers of seafood on the planet.

Edit: Regarding extremeist fundamentalism, the Philipines are a stones throw from Malasia which supports and exports extremist fundamentalism in the region.

.

.
(Edited by davidk14)
12 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: David you try to refute Blackeye's statements on the Philippines. I don't know where you get your info from but I seriously doubt she will agree with you. She is a Philipino citizen and, as such, she is quite familiar with the mood of the country. And the history.

USA did a lot to liberate the islands from Japan (along with other countries) but then invaded Mindanao in 1947 to wage war on the Muslim Moros, it hasn't left and the majority of citizens there feel VERY anti America. Having spent some time there I can personally vouch for this.

As for the millions killed? You must have a very short memory to forget Cambodia and Laos. 6 years of daily bombing civilian targets in the 1960s and 70s. Many of Pol Pots so called killing fields were actually the sites of whole villages firebombed by US Airforce B52s. Of course there was also Vietnam, victim of American aggression. There is no possible justification for American involvement in this country.
12 years ago Report
0
sebtheanimal
sebtheanimal: Bumpa is not well informed as to world events. A rehash of some minor talking points is a waste of my time.
12 years ago Report
1
Bumpa
Bumpa: Seb, how can you deny the facts? These are all well documented historical facts that it seems everyone in the world is familiar with except a few Americans. Just what the hell are American kids taught in school history?
12 years ago Report
0
sebtheanimal
sebtheanimal: Just what the hell are the Soviets, The N. Koreans, Africa and most of Central/S. America taught???
Now Europe has admitted many of these 'I want everything for free while sitting on my ass' peoples in the name of goodwill, and suffer for it they will.
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: ok think of this world with out america...you wouldnt have a back bone!so what if we are nosey pushy crazy asses,what you got too say for yourselves world!?who would come too your aid and rescue when you cry from your own people screwing you over...you shouldnt bitch about how the shoe fits,having never walked in them...right?stay barefootin it,idc!
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: oh and by the way,the ocean has boarders to many nations,fish travel in schools,you aint got fish?and its because of us?poppycock! howis the freekin ecosystems our fault...?who would you point the finger of blame if we werent brave faced taking your shit after helping you!f n ingrates for real!
12 years ago Report
0
queentma
queentma: if my fight ,my war isnt for my family god and or myself,look out,i am the enemy...they are all i care for!this whole world sux!
12 years ago Report
0