DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

This all depends on what you mean by "support" . . .

The Soviet Union supported its satellite countries – with an iron fist.

We have provided Israel with political support.

If you mean monetarily, I say no. With the exception of trade agreements. Pouring our hard earned money into some country just to keep that country "alive" politically when they do not want to do it themselves is a waste of money, time and effort.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

We support Israel with more than just "political support". We export about 2-3 billion dollars worth of military hardware to them. The only countries that receive more are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sounds like an empire more than a family.

Wouldn't you be more comfortable with the United States spreading it's support than Cuba or Russia?

No.

Then maybe you should consider moving to those crappy communist countries. I think I can get a good deal for you.

Russia isn't communist. I think you'd be referring to DPRK.

And we've been more or less fascist for about 50 years now. That would be why I am less inclined to support an imperial spread of power than a domesticated spread of political influence, trade, and culture.

Russia is as good as a communist country. It may not be an official communist country, but it sure acts like one. That's why that guy Putin is somehow going to be the President for the next 50 or so years.

It acts like an authoritarian state sure. But it's not acting very communist except in seizing control of energy. This was for use in its foreign policy as a blunt instrument to exert control and influence over Eastern or even Western Europe. Therefore, it didn't seize oil companies for any nefarious communist purposes, but rather for national security ones.

Soviet era communism didn't leave people in power for 50 years either. Castro is the one guy who managed to do so and this was just as much of a manifestation of American policies toward Cuba than anything he himself managed to do.

Okay so you would rather have Cuba and Russia spread it's policies over the United States?

No. That question poses a false dichotomy (ie, US or Russia). It is not preferable for any nation to spread its policies by force. Including the US.

We can't. There is no provision for it in the Constitution, so it is unconstitutional. Hence, we cannot give support to other nations, no matter our justification.

Yeah, we do it though. The Constitution is a living document.

Just because there isn't a provision for it in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't be done.

Exactly! Defining support is imperative here. We need to assist our allies but we can't just "support" every country that finds itself in trouble, especially if they are not good friends to us.

Sounds like a dysfunctional family.

It could be done. That doesn't mean it should. The Constitution is very clear on what it means. Without the restrictions placed upon the government within that document, we would be in a lot bigger mess at this moment. The reason we're in such a mess is because the government ignored it and overstepped their bounds.

Our government changes the Constitution.

Let me ask you something. Have you ever even READ the Constitution? If not, do. Until you do, I cannot hold a conversation with you on this subject, because you obviously do not understand the basis of the Constitution, nor what its fundamental provisions are.

I have read the Constitution and I know our government system in-and-out. What I do know is that the Constitution doesn't have very specific cases. It's all general stuff that we, and government officials have to follow.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution only accounts for U.S. citizens, nothing about foreign affairs. That's why we have ambassadors and stuff.

Some of what we do is unconstitutional, not necessarily because of the form (what we do), but because it followed incorrect legal processes to achieve (how we did it).

Generally we the people change it by passing amendments. The government doesn't get to arbitrarily change the terms under which it operates. It does sometimes tweak the definitions through court rulings, and occasionally it uses its enumerated powers in ways that might be at best, extra-constitutional.

But if it's actually "changing" the Constitution, then there's a problem.

“I have read the Constitution and I know our government system in-and-out. What I do know is that the Constitution doesn’t have very specific cases. It’s all general stuff that we, and government officials have to follow. ”

If you have read it, you know that the Constitution is to keep the government back. Not the people. The entire thing is about the government and its job!

Like Sun Tzu said, the government cannot actually ‘change’ the Constitution, per se. They can AMEND the Constitution via the process laid out, but they cannot CHANGE it.

For some reason, my computer is being a dork and keeps doing the comments weird. >.<

That wasn't the question I asked you.

Yes, we can change the Constitution. It happens all the time.

Citations, please? I am not aware that we have ever CHANGED the Constitution. We have added AMENDMENTS yes, as in the case of the amendments outlawing slavery, etc. But we have never CHANGED the Constitution.

If I were to infer from previous conversations that you believe we should practice "Manifest Destiny" and expand, this would necessitate the use of force. Other countries and non-governmental agents did resist with force at the time, just as they do now. They did not simply lay down their arms and acquiesce to American "destiny". So yes, that is the question you asked if a reasonable person were to infer your meaning.

Stripping aside that baggage, there is no need to feel a "preference" for any national politics asserted on an international stage in the absence of force. Ideas which are acceptable will be, goods which are demanded will be purchased (if they are affordable), and so on. So long as there isn't anyone holding a gun, the application of force, to other people's heads they will kowtow to whoever has the better ideas and better arguments.

If the US doesn't have the best ideas, so be it. I happen to think that we used to. I'm not at all sure that we practice or understand them anymore. And thus I can't be too happy with us "spreading our influence".

The good news from your perspective is probably that Russia and Cuba don't seem to have very good ideas to export either. But I could cite off the top of my head, Singapore, Switzerland, and Denmark as having what I consider superior forms of societal organisation to our own present model. Even though each is somewhat distinct from each other.

To your point. None of those three countries seek to expand their influence either by force or by argument.

Amending is changing.

A change implies that the actual text is being changed. Amending is a bit different. Amending is where we add to the Constitution, whether to clarify or add protections against governmental infringement.

Your statement above specifically cited "the government" as possessing this power. That's the problem with this line of argument. The government does not get to change the Constitution. Where there are changes they follow a defined legal process in which the people may apply more definition to their enumerated rights and/or the structure of the government which is intended to protect those rights.

When the government ignores this process or violates those rights, it is illegal. Even if the government tries to write in "this is legal because we said so", or some such. There are court cases over such incidents every year in order to clarify the nebulous reaches between legitimate government activity and illegitimate. There should be more such cases. I'm still waiting for the War Powers Act to come up in court for example.

Same thing. Amending is simply a fancy word meaning for changing the Constitution.

Excellent explanation. ^.^

Too bad they don't act this way in Congress.

The problem is largely that the people don't seem to mind when the government is in violation of its agreements except on a few core issues (eminent domain restraint is an overwhelmingly popular issue with the populace for example)

What have those "other" countries done for us? Which "other" countries helped us in the Iraqi war other then France or England? Why does America help other countries? Its because we feel so much sympathy for the other countries. Like Japan, why would we help them? They attacked us at pearl harbor right? We felt sympathetic for them and decided to be one of the First countries over. Is it because America has more money then the other countries? What if the whole North-East of America went into disastor? Do you think the other countries would come to our Aid? Or would they skip out on us? even though they are our Allies

France didn't help in the second Iraq War (they did in the first). And that other countries did not help us in the second shouldn't be seen as a problem. Mostly because it was an idiotic war and helping other countries do stupid things isn't a bar by which they should be judged.

Speaking of other countries helping: see amount of aid given following Katrina. You don't need hypothetical scenarios to see that other countries in fact gave quite a lot of assistance.

Now why isnt it big news when other countries help us in those disastors? see what ive done? it made me say things that might not be true and it peeved me off.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here… but basically it's not "big news" because US news media wouldn't cover it, the US state department tends to refuse most of it (except for money), and is slow to accept and/or use what it does take in.

The problem is basically that we drag our feet bureaucratically such that when help does arrive, it's well after the story and the media cycle has already moved on to the next story and then when some Dutch or Canadian or Japanese aid agency is on the ground, it's not mentioned or noticed except by local news. As an example, one of the biggest problems with the BP oil spill was the Jones Act, a 1920s protectionist regulation requiring US manufactured or owned ships on US territorial waters (which has, not coincidentally, resulted in the US shipbuilding industry withering away relative to Japan or Germany for the much larger international shipping market). That made it harder to get say, Dutch or British equipment into the disaster zone to help with cleanup. This was actually a story during the disaster: that other countries were trying to help and there was legal red tape in the way preventing it. French ships were eventually sold to a Florida company to get around it.

Here's a summary on Katrina: "By late February 2006 foreign countries had offered or pledged a total of $854 million in cash and oil (to be sold for cash) to help with the disaster cleanup. This large outpouring came from many countries, including longstanding major U.S. allies (Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom), and from other nations that are traditionally the recipients of U.S. foreign assistance (such as Bangladesh). There were also aid offers from several countries that were surprising, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Pakistan. …. The government of Kuwait made the largest offer, with $100 million in cash and $400 million in oil. Because of the delay in accepting this aid, Kuwait eventually gave its monetary support to two private groups in order to support relief indirectly.

Consider that they were giving oil and cash and the government still didn't accept it readily enough to make it useful.