Is the USA consistent in its attitudes to foreign powers that perpetrate human rights abuses?

Question

I have read a lot of material that states that the USA seems to be inconsistent in its attitudes to foreign policy. Lets look at the period since WW II.

I have been told, and it seems to be true, that the USA is not acting on any consistent moral principles, or taking genuine action to right wrongs, but rather acting in its own interests.

I am not just interested in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Israel, Nicaragua, South Africa, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, the Balkan Wars.

Even in WW II the USA seemed not to act on principles of justice or morality. Why did they join so late?

Some good comments. By the way, the "war on terror' is a questionable description about what is occurring.

What does it actually mean? It reeks of media hype.

It seems that one mans hero is anothers terrorist.

Answer 1

USA isnt consistent in anything ... they were friends with Saddam, a lot of Saddam's artillery is American ... they watched Idi Amin do his thing, they let Germany be destroyed in WW II only to get the contracts to rebuild it. even as of now they are sitting out atrocities in Africa and sending their youngsters to die in Iraq .. which too is a raving mess. frankly, the world is at a point where its 'to each his own' - I wish they'd start minding their own business, their own backyard needs cleaning.

Answer 2

First of all the World has changed dramatically since WWII and so the US has had to adapt to the changing landscape. Our moral principles ARE and will continue to be consistent but the strategies and tactics we use are certainly not, that is called judgement. We have had 11 different Presidents since 1945 and they have each had their own thoughts on what is the right thing to do. We should not be responsible for policing the World but there have been occasions when we have decided to take actions that were not popular. That will continue to happen. In WWII we delayed entry until we were attacked but for all intents and purposed we were involved in the war, through Lend-Lease and other means long before Pearl Harbor. The reason was that the peacenicks at home thought it was a European War and wanted us to isolate ourselves. All this did was make the situation worse and made it harder to deal with once we finally went in. Ask yourselves a question? Would the World be a safer or less safe place without the US? If Tyrants could do what they wanted, who would be safe? Your country would be at risk...

Answer 3

the Answer is Politics which everyone knows has as severe allergy to Moral principals..any way the Political Climate in America can make the Foreign Principals of our Country seem confusing and at times inconsistent. Basically Americans reserve the right to change their minds. WWII is a good example. We as a country debated whether or not to enter the war until something happened to tip the political will to one side or the other..in that case to Join the war..People held out reservations of getting involved (greatly due to a hangover from WWI ) until we were directly involved (Pearl Harbor).

Answer 4

While I am in support of the war on terror, I agree that the US government is inconsistent with which countries it chooses to save from abusive dictators. Take for example Tibet. The Dalai Lama initially pleaded to the US for help against China, but the US refused. The fact is though, that we can't rule the world. There are far more dictators out there than democracies and it is up to the people of those countries to rise up, like the Americans did to the British for their own freedom.

Answer 5

No, the US is very inconsistant with their human rights policies. You have only to look at Saudi Arabia to see this. Not to mention the policy of renditions...

As far as WWII, Americans in general wanted to isolate themselves from the world at large. They had gotten tired of war, especially since WWI, but even before that they were of the mind to let the rest of the world take care of itself. If it weren't for Pearl Harbor, Germany may have been able to take England.

Answer 6

If a rustic income from such abuses (case in factor, if it buys affordable products whose production in touch the abuse of human rights -- that is totally complication-free), then i imagine it obviously does have one of those duty. What that's going to do is the puzzling question: from time to time boycotting the products is a sturdy tactic; from time to time that is not; from time to time diplomatic pressure enables; from time to time it doesn't. The techniques might want to be measured to the context, yet doing not something might want to not be seen as a respectable option. If a rustic isn't making the most of such abuses then it turns right into a count of even if the country has the skill to do good without doing extra damage. imagine you're strolling by skill of a park and see someone being assaulted. once you've the skill to intrude and quit the sufferer's suffering, then you definitely might want to. even if, imagine you spot someone with a gun to someone's' head. by using intervening thoughtlessly, you would actual convey about the sufferer's lack of existence. evaluate a third case: you're a lot weaker than the attacker, and by using intervening you not purely do no good, yet you grow to be an extra sufferer. those are puzzling questions. the point is to ask even if a rustic has the skill to do good without doing extra damage. if so, then i imagine intervention is a duty (ideally by skill of the UN). Violent intervention, even if, is fullyyt from time to time justified. it would want to do extra good than damage, yet there is *continually* a hazard that it will do a lot extra damage than it prevents.

Answer 7

In a lot of ways, the USA seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth. We crack down on countries that don't treat their citizens correctly... unless that country is a trade partner.
Then we turn around and mistrreat prisoners in our "care".
If you've also noticed, most of the wars in the last 1/2 of the 20the Century were against people of color...

Answer 8

Rise of the fourth reich and americans are too prideful to admit it
they think nothing bad will ever happen here
guess what
they've been warned.