America Asks for Help

[saxitoxin]

Iran, long considered one of the United States' most intractable foes, has agreed to perform search-and-rescue missions for U.S. pilots who crash on its territory during the military campaign against Afghanistan, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today.

The New York Times reported this week that just hours after the United States began its first military strikes against Afghanistan on Oct. 7, Iran sent a back-channel message to the Bush administration that it would rescue any U.S. military personnel in distress in its territory.

The message came in response to a letter sent the day before by the United States assuring Iran that U.S. forces would respect its territorial integrity, including its airspace, and asking that Iran help any Americans who might be forced to land in Iranian territory or who escaped into Iran, the Times reported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 1e3c4e1e59

[Evil Semp]

I don't think anyone has said it better.

[Neoteny]

The USG gave equal consideration to the relief needs of all of its citizens and the infrastructure needs of all of its incorporated territory.

Non-citizens (e.g. Kuwaitis, Bolivians) may receive less relief than citizens (e.g. Texans, Puerto Ricans). Unincorporated territory (e.g. New Zealand, Puerto Rico) may also receive less infrastructure support than incorporated territory (e.g. Maine, Hawaii).

Fifty-four percent of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico expressed a desire not to have the territory of Puerto Rico incorporated into the United States in 2012, deciding they would rather not have to pay income tax or be bound by certain aspects of the Bill of Rights. It's no different than my neighbor deciding they would rather have an extra $150/month to spend on vodka and heroin than buy car insurance. He gets to party more every month than me, but if his car gets wrecked he's SOL. The Puerto Ricans have as much a right to determine their individual and collective priorities as my neighbor.

I respect the right of Puerto Ricans to choose rum and women over a functioning civil defense office. As a progressive, I am unwilling to impose my Gothic values of preparedness on them.

Sure, the US government has a history of ignoring the plight of its citizens (see Katrina), and as a sovereign nation can ignore them to the content of its oligarchy's hearts. It's indefensible, however, from any position other than "the government can do what it wants to whom it wants," which, honestly, is the sort of thing I would expect from a fascist.

Puerto Rico asked for aid from the US government, regardless of how they voted in the referendum before the most recent one (?), and that government was unwilling or unable to assist, so those US citizens had to turn to foreign aid.

So, cute "rant," but a disgusting sentiment.

[Dukasaur]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

[thegreekdog]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

Yes, but the US didn't need their help, so irrelevant to this thread.

[thegreekdog]

however, from any position other than "the government can do what it wants to whom it wants," which, honestly, is the sort of thing I would expect from a fascist.

I'm not sure you know what fascist means. Or, perhaps more accurately, there's a different or additional term you could use.

[HitRed]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

War is more fun if you bring along the innocents.

"Hmmm, we need some moral cover, Canada will you join our team?" - Bush

[Dukasaur]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

War is more fun if you bring along the innocents.

"Hmmm, we need some moral cover, Canada will you join our team?" - Bush

Pretty much.

[Dukasaur]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

Yes, but the US didn't need their help, so irrelevant to this thread.

The OP didn't ask if the US ever needed help, only if it asked for it.

[thegreekdog]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

War is more fun if you bring along the innocents.

"Hmmm, Canada we need some moral cover, will you join our team?"

This is not directed at you, but I'm still amazed at the "we should not have gone to war with Iraq" take from the same people that said "let's go to war with Iraq."

It's kind of like the "don't sexually harass people" take from the same people that said "Bill Clinton is cool man."

[thegreekdog]

Australia and New Zealand are sending firefighting crews to California and Oregon to help with massive wildfires. Are there any other times when American asked for help?

Both times that America attacked Iraq, it demanded that dozens of other countries participate. Not that it really needed the help in a military sense, but it was trying to legitimize its aggression by pretending that there was a Grand Coalition of countries that wanted to attack Iraq.

Yes, but the US didn't need their help, so irrelevant to this thread.

The OP didn't ask if the US ever needed help, only if it asked for it.

Agreed. However, was that a purely domestic play? Seems like something other than that.

[Neoteny]

however, from any position other than "the government can do what it wants to whom it wants," which, honestly, is the sort of thing I would expect from a fascist.

I'm not sure you know what fascist means. Or, perhaps more accurately, there's a different or additional term you could use.

"Neo-fascist" is probably best, since "fascist" is a pretty specific thing with a touch more mixed economy than Americans can generally bear, but "fascist" has the connotation I'm looking for and I'm not going to get hung up on the crunchy bits because I also know Saxi's just the world's greatest piss-taker.

[saxitoxin]

The USG gave equal consideration to the relief needs of all of its citizens and the infrastructure needs of all of its incorporated territory.

Non-citizens (e.g. Kuwaitis, Bolivians) may receive less relief than citizens (e.g. Texans, Puerto Ricans). Unincorporated territory (e.g. New Zealand, Puerto Rico) may also receive less infrastructure support than incorporated territory (e.g. Maine, Hawaii).

Fifty-four percent of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico expressed a desire not to have the territory of Puerto Rico incorporated into the United States in 2012, deciding they would rather not have to pay income tax or be bound by certain aspects of the Bill of Rights. It's no different than my neighbor deciding they would rather have an extra $150/month to spend on vodka and heroin than buy car insurance. He gets to party more every month than me, but if his car gets wrecked he's SOL. The Puerto Ricans have as much a right to determine their individual and collective priorities as my neighbor.

I respect the right of Puerto Ricans to choose rum and women over a functioning civil defense office. As a progressive, I am unwilling to impose my Gothic values of preparedness on them.

Sure, the US government has a history of ignoring the plight of its citizens (see Katrina), and as a sovereign nation can ignore them to the content of its oligarchy's hearts. It's indefensible, however, from any position other than "the government can do what it wants to whom it wants," which, honestly, is the sort of thing I would expect from a fascist.

Puerto Rico asked for aid from the US government, regardless of how they voted in the referendum before the most recent one (?), and that government was unwilling or unable to assist, so those US citizens had to turn to foreign aid.

So, cute "rant," but a disgusting sentiment.

How many hyperbolic slogans and buzzwords can we fit into one post?

Oligarchy, fascist ... who wants to RSVP genocide?

[Neoteny]

Vietnam. Korea.

But glad to see you managed to stop your backside by whining about "muh discourse."

[Symmetry]

GD- after 9/11 the US invoked article 5 in the NATO agreement asking for help. The other NATO countries helped. A lot of good people died, or were seriously hurt fighting to protect the US.

You should be less quick to dismiss the contributions of allies simply because they're foreign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

[nietzsche]

you can deliver that same information without trying to get tgd engaged in the same type of discussion you entangled Duk the past couple of days.

[Symmetry]

you can deliver that same information without trying to get tgd engaged in the same type of discussion you entangled Duk the past couple of days.

Nietz- let the grown-ups talk for a bit, ok? We cool?

TGD is a big boy, and we've argued often over the years. I'm on to his tricks, and he knows mine. He also knows when I have a solid point. From experience, I think he'll try to dodge it or dismiss it.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going the dodge route on this one. One of the potential points of the "America Asks for Help" topic is that the United States does a lot for a lot of different countries and asks for very little in return (and is often unfairly criticized). I would point out that Islamic terrorism is also not limited and was not since 9/11/2001 limited to the United States. So arguably it was in the best interests of the US's allies in the "war on terror" to join the "war on terror." In other words, it was not purely a selfless act (unlike, say, Mexico sending water to Puerto Rico). On the other hand, how often has the US helped another country for purely selfless reasons.

[Symmetry]

I'm going the dodge route on this one. One of the potential points of the "America Asks for Help" topic is that the United States does a lot for a lot of different countries and asks for very little in return (and is often unfairly criticized). I would point out that Islamic terrorism is also not limited and was not since 9/11/2001 limited to the United States. So arguably it was in the best interests of the US's allies in the "war on terror" to join the "war on terror." In other words, it was not purely a selfless act (unlike, say, Mexico sending water to Puerto Rico). On the other hand, how often has the US helped another country for purely selfless reasons.

It's an interesting theory you propose- that only "selfless acts" count in international relations. I think you might have mentioned the idea of a deal being in the best interests of both parties somewhere in the middle there. You should expand on the latter rather than the former in your thinking,

[HitRed]

What is interesting to me is America can land men on the moon yet can't get enough firefighters. Hurricanes no problem. Floods no problem. Earthquakes no problem. Why is there a deficit here?

[thegreekdog]

I'm going the dodge route on this one. One of the potential points of the "America Asks for Help" topic is that the United States does a lot for a lot of different countries and asks for very little in return (and is often unfairly criticized). I would point out that Islamic terrorism is also not limited and was not since 9/11/2001 limited to the United States. So arguably it was in the best interests of the US's allies in the "war on terror" to join the "war on terror." In other words, it was not purely a selfless act (unlike, say, Mexico sending water to Puerto Rico). On the other hand, how often has the US helped another country for purely selfless reasons.

It's an interesting theory you propose- that only "selfless acts" count in international relations. I think you might have mentioned the idea of a deal being in the best interests of both parties somewhere in the middle there. You should expand on the latter rather than the former in your thinking,

There are likely a wide range of "helping out other countries." I suspect that governments tend to do things for self-interested purposes. Thinking about the US involvement in World War I, there are different views of why the United States got into the war when it did. Some people point to German unconditional submarine warfare; some point to the potential collapse of England/France; some point to that the United States thought the war would end sooner if they got involved. Some of those reasons are self-interested (e.g. the first two -"you're killing our people and affecting our economy" and "we made a lot of loans to England/France"), some are arguably selfless ("This war has gone on long enough and maybe we can force Germany to capitulate if we get involved.") I've always been fascinated by people in the US saying "we saved Frances in World War 2" but ignoring that it took the surprise attack of Japan on the United States and then a declaration of war by Germany before the US even got involved.

[HitRed]

I've always been fascinated by people in the US saying "we saved Frances in World War 2" but ignoring that it took the surprise attack of Japan on the United States and then a declaration of war by Germany before the US even got involved.

I don't understand you at all. If someone saves your life just be grateful.

If I was in an auto accident I wouldn't care if they stayed out late the night before or if they had breakfast or not. Just pull me from the burning car.

[thegreekdog]

I've always been fascinated by people in the US saying "we saved Frances in World War 2" but ignoring that it took the surprise attack of Japan on the United States and then a declaration of war by Germany before the US even got involved.

I don't understand you at all. If someone saves your life just be grateful.

I'm viewing it from the savior's side. A short parable:

Three men live comfortable in a neighborhood, each in their own house. The first man decides to make aggressive remarks to the second man. The third man disapproves but also really has no quarrel with and kind of likes the first man. The first man then punches the second man in the face repeatedly until the second man is unconscious. The third man again disapproves but is too busy or likes the first man too much to do anything about it. Then, a couple of years after the second man has been unconscious, the first man punches the third man in the face. At this point, the third man beats up the first man and takes the second man to the hospital.

Yes, the second man should grateful to the third man for taking him to the hospital. But the third man should not brag about taking the second man to the hospital given that it took a couple of years and a punch in the face from the first man for the third man to act.

[HitRed]

I've always been fascinated by people in the US saying "we saved Frances in World War 2" but ignoring that it took the surprise attack of Japan on the United States and then a declaration of war by Germany before the US even got involved.

I don't understand you at all. If someone saves your life just be grateful.

I'm viewing it from the savior's side. A short parable:

Three men live comfortable in a neighborhood, each in their own house. The first man decides to make aggressive remarks to the second man. The third man disapproves but also really has no quarrel with and kind of likes the first man. The first man then punches the second man in the face repeatedly until the second man is unconscious. The third man again disapproves but is too busy or likes the first man too much to do anything about it. Then, a couple of years after the second man has been unconscious, the first man punches the third man in the face. At this point, the third man beats up the first man and takes the second man to the hospital.

Yes, the second man should grateful to the third man for taking him to the hospital. But the third man should not brag about taking the second man to the hospital given that it took a couple of years and a punch in the face from the first man for the third man to act.

So the third man had an obligation to protect the 2nd man? America didn't have a mutual defense treaty with France. America was selling them airplanes and tanks.

[thegreekdog]

I've always been fascinated by people in the US saying "we saved Frances in World War 2" but ignoring that it took the surprise attack of Japan on the United States and then a declaration of war by Germany before the US even got involved.

I don't understand you at all. If someone saves your life just be grateful.

I'm viewing it from the savior's side. A short parable:

Three men live comfortable in a neighborhood, each in their own house. The first man decides to make aggressive remarks to the second man. The third man disapproves but also really has no quarrel with and kind of likes the first man. The first man then punches the second man in the face repeatedly until the second man is unconscious. The third man again disapproves but is too busy or likes the first man too much to do anything about it. Then, a couple of years after the second man has been unconscious, the first man punches the third man in the face. At this point, the third man beats up the first man and takes the second man to the hospital.

Yes, the second man should grateful to the third man for taking him to the hospital. But the third man should not brag about taking the second man to the hospital given that it took a couple of years and a punch in the face from the first man for the third man to act.

So the third man had an obligation to protect the 2nd man?

No, but the third man should not constantly pound his chest that he helped the second man (after two years and getting attacked by the first man).