Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! CraigK 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)
How can the US claim to be in favour of democracy if they intervene if they try to overthrow democratically elected communist governments?
Don't worry CraigK, you're lucky enough to live in a democracy - communists won't be winning any elections in the US in our lifetimes
We have a limited amount of political capital worldwide at this point in time, and right now, I think it's more prudent for us to concentrate on stopping terrorism and protecting Israel. This is unfortunate because of the trend toward liberalization of Latin America. MountainDew 01:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Just how many small countries are really communist anymore? Cuba and Vietnam seem the only candidates, and since the current regimes in both of those countries appear honestly popular an American intervention could become dangerous. --WOVcenter 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Communism isn't some sort of virus. It will not spread to us. We (as in the US) have no reason to defeat communism. It's an ideology, and when it fails, something else will come along. If someone came into your household and murdered your family, and then tell you to believe in communism, you just won't. Leave it alone, and it'll die out on it's own. --Cpryd001 19:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
This debate is highly reminiscent of 1967. Communism, obviously, is no longer expanding because it failed as a realistic ideology. That's that. US military intervention did not stop Communism; Communism was efficient enough at doing that.
If there's a movement or rebellion in a Communist country, if they ask us to help and if they haven't employed detestable practices like, say, suicide bombings, then, by all means, we should help. Not many groups meet those criteria, however... Navy Nuke 15:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
What makes the U.S. so special that provides it the justification to impose its preferences on others? --Huey gunna getcha 15:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Why do you want to defeat communism? Communism defeats itself. --Order
Cough* VIETNAM Cough*
You guys... What is this all about? Perhaps we should have a debate about whether American citizens should be allowed outside of their own borders to impose their will upon others. I am not a communist, far from it, but I also don't feel the need to impose my idea of 'the truth' on anyone else. There are many peoples in the world that fear that America and its aggressive policies - are the American people proud of that? Well yes, many of them are. --Greenman
Ah these are all ridiculous comments firstly none of you have any understanding of the structural theory behind communism, secondly you are all mini hitlers (except Greenman). Maybe you should just understand that many of the worlds nations are becoming more socialist than you realsie- many in South Ameica, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Angola, France, Scandenavia, a portion of Africa the list goes on. Perhaps, The USA should keep to itself since and not inflict its own idealogy on others- I always thought that you fought a war with Britain for doing it to you, but hey if you wanna be hippocrits then go ahead, by the way the bible, Koran and Torah all say hippocrisy is a sin. ----Karl Marx 04:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT) Karl Marx
My answer to the question: no. Why? Communism is an ideology and ideas do nothing to others without action. If said ideology was to inspire wars and such, then intervention could be condoned. --Kirby 23:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No. It caused slaughter in El Salvador, Nicaruagua, Chile, Guatemala, etc. We forced the Russians out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban in. We could easily knock out Castro, but would it be worth it? Czolgolz 18:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
TO HAVE ANOTHER VIETNAM? NOW THAT'S CHRISTIAN!
Communism can't even exist in countries. Communism can only exist world-wide. "Communist state" and "communist country" are oxymorons. Learn a bit about communist theory before you try to have debates about it. - Thjazi 19:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Well said Thjazi sounds a lot like what i posted on the communism page, which mysteriosly vanished so i posted it again. Communism has never truly existed and doesnt appear it will for quite some time, some of you should read the works of Mr Marx if you want to acctually understand communism. - loveandpeace
I only have one thing to say, you all pritty much said everything i totally agree with you. So what I'm going to say is: YANKIES IMPERIALISTAS! - ciruela
Communism is not necessarily malevolent. Just because a nation has a Communist government is no reason to invade it and cause more damage. - RaymondZ
Based on human nature, history, and communist theory, communism can't exist in a single country. Communism is just a term used to make fascist governments and control economies seem acceptable. Once a "communist" regime has taken power, they do everything they can to keep themselves in power. (This is true of all governments, with "communism", however, the regime answers to no-one. They control all media, and can commit any atrocities which they see fit.) So, since communism can't exist, and "communism" will become corrupted and not provide for its people, it is not a just government, making it fit to be overthrown. Note though, that they are fit to be overthrown by the people of the government, not by force of the United States. Now, we should feel free to intervene by providing asylum for refugees, covertly encouraging revolution, etc. A forced overthrow makes us no better than the "communists"