Should the USA be the policemen of the world?

[eschemat]

The topic at hand is one that is fairly relevant, with the conflict in Libya. Feel free to debate this whichever way you choose, I found this to be interesting an interesting topic.

EDIT: Short first post, I have no opinion on this topic really, just wanted to create some more activity.

 

[Daddy Ash]

I don't think any country should be the policeman of the world, no one country has the right to police the world. Although I do think that a collaboration of countries acting together should have some authority in keeping conflicts subdued and minimizing loss of innocent life.
The main downside to one country doing this policing job is that it can easily be motivated by that country's political gain from involvement in a specific conflict, whereas a coalition of country's could in theory do the same policing without the political gain.
Will go into this further later on, seeing as I need to get ready to go out now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The UN should be the policemen of the world. Putting any single sovereign nation in charge of being "world police" is just asking for abuse of power... Like Iraq, Panama, Bolivia, Cuba... You get the point.

 

[eschemat]

I have no opinion, but I think that we should keep in mind that what the USA has done in the past century. Without the USA, Mutually Assured Destruction would not exist, the Germans would have a significant amount of power, the Soviet Union would have prevailed etc.

While we see the UN probably should be the policemen of the world, if they were, they would never actually do anything. They're content to sit on their bums. The key thing to remember is that Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were initiated because the US pressured other G8 countries to intervene, and that the US is the only empire in the world that has the amount of power required for global justice.

 

[-Jumpman-]

The UN should have the power necessary to intervene in the world, as they reflect the moral position of the most powerful countries in the world.

The most powerful country in the world at the moment has the most powerful army. This in itself makes the UN heavily biased towards the countries with the most power.

To get back to the problem at hand: yes the United States should be the police of the world in the sense that they provide the forces necessary to maintain peace. Any other kind of intervention from the US should not be tolerated.

 

[eschemat]

What about when the UN won't step in? Should the US then use their power to intervene? For example, the Cold War.... the US was the only country challenging the Soviet Union.

 

[Lord Chair]

Challenging the SU's ideals with comparable ideals. While this discussion isn't about justifications about either side of the Cold War, it's kinda unnecessary to claim that the SU was a threat to world peace.

The UN in its current form is a terrible 'world police', it's a political organization and is therefor lead by political motives, not moral decisionmaking.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Challenging the SU's ideals with comparable ideals. While this discussion isn't about justifications about either side of the Cold War, it's kinda unnecessary to claim that the SU was a threat to world peace.

The UN in its current form is a terrible 'world police', it's a political organization and is therefor lead by political motives, not moral decisionmaking.

Moral decisionmaking would be a terrible policy. More objective criteria need to be set in order for any international institution to be effective.

What about when the UN won't step in? Should the US then use their power to intervene? For example, the Cold War.... the US was the only country challenging the Soviet Union.

The Sovjet union is a terrible example. Considering the popularity of communism during the Cold War one could argue the US were more of a threat than the Sovjet Union.

 

[eschemat]

The UN imo is a terrible organization that has conflicting agendas and never gets anything done. For example, Britain hasn't invaded Zimbabwe because South Africa opposes the invasion because it's too close to South Africa.

While the US doesn't necessarily mean the best military, like any police force, they will have allies, and rest assured, criticizing the US as a police force doesn't justify just having no police force like it would be like with the UN as a "police force." Even now, the US is a de facto police force.

 

[Daddy Ash]

The UN is in theory a great organisation, but the implementation of the the UN and the political greed that seems to rule their actions makes them terrible in practise, until the UN rule with the best interests of peace and ending conflict at the forefront of decision making and not personal gain they will forever be a defunct world police.
Although I disagree with the idea of one country being a world police, I am inclined to believe that the USA being the world police at this moment in time serves in the best interests of containing world conflicts. At least until a better version of the UN is formed or the current UN has a radical shake-up.

 

[Lord Chair]

I don't see how the US is a de facto world police if they only operate out of their own political interest.

Real corrupt police, I'd call that.

 

[Battlecow]

Yes, we should be. BPC has a charmingly '90s view of the U.N., but all he needs to do to find out why the US should police the world is to look at Libya. It was technically a U.N. action. It had to be to enjoy public support. But America did all of the heavy lifting, because the whole thing would've gotten ****ed up if we'd left it to the U.N. Everyone was on board with this, including Europe and the good ol' UN itself- they're happy to have us and our nonpareil military solve the world's problems for them, and they don't start whining until the wars drag on longer than expected and lose public support.

Yeah, there've been abuses, mostly by the CIA. There are also a number of examples of us policing pretty damn well- those World Wars I keep hearing about, for example. Or should we have stayed in our comfy sea-surrounded country because halting evil and protecting decency "wasn't our job"?

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, yo. It's a noblesse oblige thing. The whole idea of America is that of a City on a Hill- a shining example to the rest of the world. Exceptionalism is and always has been our creed, and selfishly letting the world "solve its own problems" goes against the grain in a serious way. Sure, we could sit here and be superior and live happy lives without the strain that peacekeeping puts on our tax dollars, but the cost- that is, the safety of the world at large- would simply be too much.

 

[Lord Chair]

Real patriotism.

Duly note that no state would ever commit to military actions for the 'greater good'. Note that the States didn't join WW2 until they actually got attacked themselves, note that they invaded Vietnam for their own ideals and that no one has been defending Libya as a whole against anything but itself.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I hold a somewhat unusual view on this topic. Not only do I believe that America should not police the world, I believe that nobody at all should police the world. Here's my reasoning.

History shows that power corrupts. Not every ruler will be a tyrant of course, but sooner or later, every nation ends up with a corrupt leader, such as Nero, Hiter, Stalin, or Henry VIII. Even America has had dirtbags like Nixon and such in office. So, if we set up some world police that are actually capable of policing the world, what happens when a tyrant gets in charge and turns it into the world nazi police? You want to use a system of checks and balances to prevent that? Sure. The thing is, America was designed to use such a system to sabotage the government's effectiveness. However, the politicians eventually got around it, as proven by America's constant influence in foreign affairs today. Even if a better system of sabotage WAS set up, that would defeat the point in that you'd have world police that couldn't actually do anything. A world government powerful enough to actually police the world would be powerful enough to oppress the world.

TLDR:
For such a system to actually do anything, the world police would have to be quite powerful. This means that the only thing preventing them from being tyrants would be the honesty and morality of the politicians. Read through that sentence again and ask yourself, would you really trust a politician to manage a world police force capable of taking away your belongings, your rights and liberties, or even your life? For me that answer would be a resounding no.

 

[Battlecow]

Real patriotism.

Duly note that no state would ever commit to military actions for the 'greater good'. Note that the States didn't join WW2 until they actually got attacked themselves, note that they invaded Vietnam for their own ideals and that no one has been defending Libya as a whole against anything but itself.

In the minds of many Americans, we took action in WWII in large part to defend Europe. The government, no doubt, had many selfish interests at heart, but a great deal of the public support for WWII came from a legitimate desire to protect our fellow free countries.

We invaded Vietnam to protect the world from Communism's scourge. It went badly, yeah, but you can't argue that that was a war for purely selfish reasons.

Saying we're defending Libya "from itself" is disingenuous. We're defending the oppressed people of Libya from their bat**** insane oppressor. If you don't think there's a need to defend countries "from themselves," take a good hard look at Rwanda and all the good the UN did there.

I hold a somewhat unusual view on this topic. Not only do I believe that America should not police the world, I believe that nobody at all should police the world. Here's my reasoning.

History shows that power corrupts. Not every ruler will be a tyrant of course, but sooner or later, every nation ends up with a corrupt leader, such as Nero, Hiter, Stalin, or Henry VIII. Even America has had dirtbags like Nixon and such in office. So, if we set up some world police that are actually capable of policing the world, what happens when a tyrant gets in charge and turns it into the world nazi police? You want to use a system of checks and balances to prevent that? Sure. The thing is, America was designed to use such a system to sabotage the government's effectiveness. However, the politicians eventually got around it, as proven by America's constant influence in foreign affairs today. Even if a better system of sabotage WAS set up, that would defeat the point in that you'd have world police that couldn't actually do anything. A world government powerful enough to actually police the world would be powerful enough to oppress the world.

TLDR:
For such a system to actually do anything, the world police would have to be quite powerful. This means that the only thing preventing them from being tyrants would be the honesty and morality of the politicians. Read through that sentence again and ask yourself, would you really trust a politician to manage a world police force capable of taking away your belongings, your rights and liberties, or even your life? For me that answer would be a resounding no.

The US currently has enough power to police the world, but not to conquer the world (probably). As in, we can sort out problems in individual countries because we have the resources and military power to do it, but if we tried to oppress a whole bunch of nations, they'd probably be powerful enough to gang up and throw off our yoke.

 

[eschemat]

Battlecow has my respect.

 

[ballin4life]

US policing the world has lead to US bankruptcy. It doesn't make sense either to take money from citizens and spend it doing things in other countries that have no impact on US citizens.

 

[Battlecow]

Thank you, Henry Kissinger.

I believe, as do many other US citizens, that the US, as the most prosperous and powerful nation in history, has a responsibility to the rest of the world. America's supposed to be a city on a hill; it's part of who we are. Acting selfishly doesn't "make sense" to me.

 

[Lord Chair]

Who are you to decide what the political ideals of the US are?

 

[eschemat]

Apart from the fact that it is a political ideal of the US, because the US has always stood for that, in absence of the US fighting in wars, there is no political willpower to start the liberation of countries. The US is like any other police force; they can receive funding from outside sources (other countries or UN) and they can work with other city's police force (other countries or UN again) but they still have the jurisdiction to start things without conflicting political agendas in the UN because the UN is inefficient. While the US being the only police force isn't extremely efficient, it's the most efficient of all other solutions.

 

[zelda rocks]

I personally believe that, in light of recent events in Libya, coupled with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; that while we shouldn't be the sole authority, that we have not only the experience but the global prominence in order to facilitate in the administering of justice and equality. The very fact that we led the intervention in Libya through NATO, that we were the leaders and arugably the initiators of the offensive, demonstrates that the world places us on a very high pedestal, despite our recent shortcomings; that should be what the U.S.A. focuses on, faciliating in administration within foregin affairs, not particualarly taking a sole totalitarian stance or role.

 

[Battlecow]

Who are you to decide what the political ideals of the US are?

... I'm not deciding what they are. I'm telling you what they are. They were "decided" over a long time by all the citizens of the US. What did I say to make you think I was "deciding" anything? If you're wondering why I think that those are the political ideals of the US, that's an entirely different question; it's not presumptuous of me to have opinions as to what our ideals are, however, as your post seems to imply, because every educated citizen of the USA should have such opinions (I think that they'd be largely the same as what I just told you, if you asked around).

I personally believe that, in light of recent events in Libya, coupled with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; that while we shouldn't be the sole authority, that we have not only the experience but the global prominence in order to facilitate in the administering of justice and equality. The very fact that we led the intervention in Libya through NATO, that we were the leaders and arugably the initiators of the offensive, demonstrates that the world places us on a very high pedestal, despite our recent shortcomings; that should be what the U.S.A. focuses on, faciliating in administration within foregin affairs, not particualarly taking a sole totalitarian stance or role.

*resists his pedantic impulses*

I'm a little confused by your post, sensible though it seems. Are you saying that we should focus on more diplomatic and infrastructure-building type thingies? I do agree that it's not one size fits all; we can't effectively and precisely police every country in the world at once; we have to pick and choose.

 

[zelda rocks]

I'm saying that we should refrain from being global watchdogs; let's work together with our allies in the World Community. We can't be the sole proprietor of truth and justice, but we can have a major impact in conjunction with the rest of the Global Community; the world more or less listens when we speak up, let's use that for the betterment of the Nations.

 

[Battlecow]

A good point. Certainly we should cooperate with our allies when possible; No one (I hope) would suggest that we should "police the world" alone. But as uncle Ben would say - "with great power comes great responsibility." We've got the means and the will, and we should wield them to what extent we can.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The thing is, I don't trust politicians with that great power and great responsibility. Obama has broken every single promise he made to the voters since he got into office. I don't want him policing the world, and what's to guarantee there won't be more like him? Also, as an important note, the US Bill of Rights stops at the border. So if you're accused of commiting a crime by some US soldiers in Pakistan, you could end up shot on the spot. Sure, it sounds good to "help remove dictators" and such, but in practice it's more "Set up new dictators more to conquering country X's liking."

 

[eschemat]

In practice it usually isn't like that actually lol. Soviet Union, Vietnam, both the World Wars. Just because you don't trust authority figures all the time does not justify eliminating authority figures all together. Checks and balances are already in the system with mutually assured destruction and concepts such as that. The US doesn't have enough power globally to conquer the world, it only has the power to conquer the world when it aligns itself with other countries such as Britain.

Anyways, a world where the US's ideology is spread across the world is much better than the ideology of a country such as Libya being spread all around the world, simply for liberty. Unlike what you say, in practice, the US violates sovereignty when it needs to, and it pulls out when it needs to, such as what's happening in Afghanistan right now. Anyways, Karzai is much better than the Taliban ruling Afghanistan.

The fact is, a world without law versus a world with the US as policemen; think about it. The UN never steps in, so we only have these two option.

 

[ballin4life]

In practice it usually isn't like that actually lol. Soviet Union, Vietnam, both the World Wars. Just because you don't trust authority figures all the time does not justify eliminating authority figures all together. Checks and balances are already in the system with mutually assured destruction and concepts such as that. The US doesn't have enough power globally to conquer the world, it only has the power to conquer the world when it aligns itself with other countries such as Britain.

The cold war was all about the US propping up dictators in foreign countries (to prevent them from falling under Soviet influence).

Anyways, a world where the US's ideology is spread across the world is much better than the ideology of a country such as Libya being spread all around the world, simply for liberty. Unlike what you say, in practice, the US violates sovereignty when it needs to, and it pulls out when it needs to, such as what's happening in Afghanistan right now. Anyways, Karzai is much better than the Taliban ruling Afghanistan.

But it's worse than a world where no ideology is forcibly spread.

The fact is, a world without law versus a world with the US as policemen; think about it. The UN never steps in, so we only have these two option.

The US policing the world actually makes the world (and the US in particular) less safe. Not to mention that the US simply can't afford it.

Thank you, Henry Kissinger.

I believe, as do many other US citizens, that the US, as the most prosperous and powerful nation in history, has a responsibility to the rest of the world. America's supposed to be a city on a hill; it's part of who we are. Acting selfishly doesn't "make sense" to me.

US isn't the most prosperous nation in history any more. You might have missed it, but the US is out of money.

Also interventionist foreign policy is NOT at all a part of who the US is. In fact, it's very much the opposite. The US had a long history of noninterventionist policy.

Attempting to forcibly spread American values backfires, causing unrest in the target country and burning a hole in the US pocketbook.

 

[Battlecow]

The thing is, I don't trust politicians with that great power and great responsibility. Obama has broken every single promise he made to the voters since he got into office. I don't want him policing the world, and what's to guarantee there won't be more like him? Also, as an important note, the US Bill of Rights stops at the border. So if you're accused of commiting a crime by some US soldiers in Pakistan, you could end up shot on the spot. Sure, it sounds good to "help remove dictators" and such, but in practice it's more "Set up new dictators more to conquering country X's liking."

OK... Anarchy, then? lol. Someone's gotta wield the power. "Politicians suck" has been so ingrained into the public consciousness that it seems to go without saying that they objectively suck. In point of fact, they're human, and sometimes **** that seems ridiculous gets by, but by and large they don't **** things up irreparably.

I kinda disagree with you about just how bad Obama is, but w/e; the point is that corrupt policing by America is better than no policing at all; see Rwanda. Americans are a fairly moral people and we won't let truly vile and atrocious shenanigans go down where we can see them. The politicians simply cannot destroy entire countries without our consent; they don't have the power. Left to their own devices, however, I can see situations where a number of third world countries, without our (relatively good) infrastructure, implode and go all genocidal on the people within.

But it's worse than a world where no ideology is forcibly spread.



The US policing the world actually makes the world (and the US in particular) less safe. Not to mention that the US simply can't afford it.



US isn't the most prosperous nation in history any more. You might have missed it, but the US is out of money.

Also interventionist foreign policy is NOT at all a part of who the US is. In fact, it's very much the opposite. The US had a long history of noninterventionist policy.

Attempting to forcibly spread American values backfires, causing unrest in the target country and burning a hole in the US pocketbook.

You're saying that there's never a time to spread our ideologies forcibly? OK buddy. Communism kinda sucked ***, and preserving liberty and capitalism, by force, was a good idea in principle.

It makes us less safe. It makes the world a great deal safer. If the US had a policy of never intervening in **** that didn't directly concern us, China would be all over Taiwan, Kim Jong Il would be pissing on a pile of dead Seoulian Starcraft players right now, and Libya would be up in flames.

Temporary setback. We'll bounce back; we always do.

That one changed when we became a world power instead of a tiny ex-colony. As a tiny ex-colony, we had to lead by example; getting our own **** in order and showing *****es how it was done. As a world power, we could actually set **** aright ourselves. The core values never changed, only the circumstances.

Sometimes. Iraq was probably a bad idea, for example. Obviously not every police action we take will necessarily be good for the country in question, and probably very few of them will be good for us. But the principle is sound; there are times when we should police, when we should exercise our power even if it's not in our own best interests. You simply can't disagree with that; look at WWII again if you have to.

 

[ballin4life]

OK... Anarchy, then? lol. Someone's gotta wield the power. "Politicians suck" has been so ingrained into the public consciousness that it seems to go without saying that they objectively suck. In point of fact, they're human, and sometimes **** that seems ridiculous gets by, but by and large they don't **** things up irreparably.

haha oh wow. politicians suck is the understatement of the century. i'm not saying they are all terrible people but definitely their incentives are all messed up. and they've ****ed up this country pretty badly.

I kinda disagree with you about just how bad Obama is, but w/e; the point is that corrupt policing by America is better than no policing at all; see Rwanda. Americans are a fairly moral people and we won't let truly vile and atrocious shenanigans go down where we can see them. The politicians simply cannot destroy entire countries without our consent; they don't have the power. Left to their own devices, however, I can see situations where a number of third world countries, without our (relatively good) infrastructure, implode and go all genocidal on the people within.

Corrupt policing by America is better than no policing at all? Says who?

Americans won't let truly vile and atrocious shenanigans go down? Guantanamo? Vietnam? Japanese internment?

You're saying that there's never a time to spread our ideologies forcibly? OK buddy. Communism kinda sucked ***, and preserving liberty and capitalism, by force, was a good idea in principle.

Attempts to combat communism failed miserably and made the US much worse off. The thing that brought down communism was its own economic failures.

It makes us less safe. It makes the world a great deal safer. If the US had a policy of never intervening in **** that didn't directly concern us, China would be all over Taiwan, Kim Jong Il would be pissing on a pile of dead Seoulian Starcraft players right now, and Libya would be up in flames.

There wouldn't be wide rings of terrorists planning attacks against the US. We would have much better relations with several countries. And a lot more money. Plus there's all those American lives lost.

Temporary setback. We'll bounce back; we always do.

Attempts to police the world have had a large impact on the US's fiscal situation.

That one changed when we became a world power instead of a tiny ex-colony. As a tiny ex-colony, we had to lead by example; getting our own **** in order and showing *****es how it was done. As a world power, we could actually set **** aright ourselves. The core values never changed, only the circumstances.

The core values of the US are still non-interventionist though. Founding fathers etc.

Sometimes. Iraq was probably a bad idea, for example. Obviously not every police action we take will necessarily be good for the country in question, and probably very few of them will be good for us. But the principle is sound; there are times when we should police, when we should exercise our power even if it's not in our own best interests. You simply can't disagree with that; look at WWII again if you have to.

You realize the US entered WWII because it got attacked by Japan right?

 

[eschemat]

haha oh wow. politicians suck is the understatement of the century. i'm not saying they are all terrible people but definitely their incentives are all messed up. and they've ****ed up this country pretty badly.



Corrupt policing by America is better than no policing at all? Says who?

Americans won't let truly vile and atrocious shenanigans go down? Guantanamo? Vietnam? Japanese internment?



Attempts to combat communism failed miserably and made the US much worse off. The thing that brought down communism was its own economic failures.



There wouldn't be wide rings of terrorists planning attacks against the US. We would have much better relations with several countries. And a lot more money. Plus there's all those American lives lost.



Attempts to police the world have had a large impact on the US's fiscal situation.



The core values of the US are still non-interventionist though. Founding fathers etc.



You realize the US entered WWII because it got attacked by Japan right?

Better than anarchy though. If you say otherwise, read the book the Bottom Billion, anarchy causes mass amounts of poverty.


Corrupt policing is far better. Take for example Egypt. When it was under dictatorship, it was a good dictatorship, and one that the US agreed with because the country was growing the most from that dictatorship, and had the most utility for the people. Then, anarchy broke out, and now Christians are being murdered daily in Egypt. Corrupt policing isn't perfect, but it's much better than other types of policing.

Side note: the policing done by the US is one with checks and balances, namely with the international community and other western liberal democracies such as Canada, Britain and France. The US is not the only party, but as any other police force, they're the ones who will be the catalyst for action.

In the moments that kind of legislation was needed was in the moments where there was a danger to the safety of the US, and ultimately to the rest of the world. That kind of policy doesn't last forever however. There's justifications to those actions, and the benefits far outweigh the costs.

That's one case where the US failed. Although, you're wrong about how communism failed; the revolutions of 1989 were largely the catalyst for the fall of communism. It's pretty drastically different because nowadays NATO countries provide material support for those kinds of revolutions, and typically those fights can be made significantly easier, as in the case of Libya.

They did manage to push Al-Qaeda out of the countries they invaded, and they did manage to push out the oppressive Taliban regime from Afganistan. The better relations were largely with regimes that we don't like to align with, and already have bad relations with. Countries that have good relations with the US are going to stay onboard no matter what. The money lost can be made up eventually, and the US can afford to take out that trillion dollars. And lastly, casualties have been relatively few, and the soldiers themselves volunteer to go into war.

Values change overtime.

Of course the US entered only because it was attacked, it didn't have the political willpower or the dollars to enter without justification. Now, the US is significantly richer, has more political willpower, and loses significantly less lives. Not to mention the fact that they can police now with their advanced technology, and their nuclear weapons lol.

 

[Lord Chair]

People keep mentioning 'American wealth', are people forgetting that the American wealth is entirely dependent on Chinese loans?

As for corrupt policing being superior to no policy whatsoever: bringing up one case doesn't make a solid foundation of your argument. You're bringing up Egypt, I'd go as far as bringing up American-installed South-Vietnamese government. Not only that, corrupt policing is the only reason communism didn't work out too well.

 

[ballin4life]

The US is significantly poorer now, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ever thought that MAYBE the reason people are going crazy in Egypt now is because they used to be oppressed under a dictatorship?

The US is looked down on by much of the world now due to its interventionist foreign policy. So I'm not sure what you mean when you imply that US foreign policy hasn't hurt the US's diplomacy.

Saying that communism ended due to its economic failures is not mutually exclusive from saying that 1989 revolutions were the catalyst.

Did you really just say Guantanamo, Vietnam and Japanese Internment are justified?

Also free market anarchy doesn't cause poverty.

 

[Lord Chair]

Well didn't we just nicely state the same things there.

Note that true free market anarchy has proven itself to be problematic. A certain amount of governmental trade regulation tends to be required.

 

[Ocean]

don't start talking about free market anarchy in this thread, because it will derail way too quickly.

Corrupt policing is far better. Take for example Egypt. When it was under dictatorship, it was a good dictatorship, and one that the US agreed with because the country was growing the most from that dictatorship, and had the most utility for the people. Then, anarchy broke out, and now Christians are being murdered daily in Egypt. Corrupt policing isn't perfect, but it's much better than other types of policing.

in what ways was egypt a "good dictatorship"?
what other types of policing is corrupt policing better than? even more corrupt policing? because "corrupt policing is valid because it's better than even more corrupt policing" isn't a very good case to argue for.

Side note: the policing done by the US is one with checks and balances, namely with the international community and other western liberal democracies such as Canada, Britain and France. The US is not the only party, but as any other police force, they're the ones who will be the catalyst for action.

the US isn't the only party, but it is the most active one. britain rarely gets involved in anything that doesn't concern them (for good reason I'd say), and lol @ canada and france.
not to mention, there's a huge difference between the US being the sole policeman of the world, and other countries being policemen as well.

In the moments that kind of legislation was needed was in the moments where there was a danger to the safety of the US, and ultimately to the rest of the world. That kind of policy doesn't last forever however. There's justifications to those actions, and the benefits far outweigh the costs.

did you really just say that vietnam was justified...?
how exactly was guantanamo, vietnam, or japanese internment a "danger to the safety of the rest of the world"? I highly doubt that a small, introspective country was that much danger to the world, just because they had an internal communist revolution. japanese internment is even more ridiculous. putting people into prison/work camps because they were japanese had no valid justification.

That's one case where the US failed.

the one case where we failed? what about grenada? the republic of congo? somalia? cuba? panama?
just because it is the only popular case where we had a major failure, doesn't make it the only case.

They did manage to push Al-Qaeda out of the countries they invaded, and they did manage to push out the oppressive Taliban regime from Afganistan. The better relations were largely with regimes that we don't like to align with, and already have bad relations with. Countries that have good relations with the US are going to stay onboard no matter what.

Al-Qaeda still exists, and so does the Taliban.

The money lost can be made up eventually, and the US can afford to take out that trillion dollars. And lastly, casualties have been relatively few, and the soldiers themselves volunteer to go into war.

we can afford it on what budget? we are already miles into debt: this isn't a justification to push ourselves further into debt. lol @ "money lost can be made up". the last time we paid off the debt was under jackson in the 1800s.
so because people volunteer to kill or be killed, that makes it okay?

Of course the US entered only because it was attacked, it didn't have the political willpower or the dollars to enter without justification. Now, the US is significantly richer, has more political willpower, and loses significantly less lives. Not to mention the fact that they can police now with their advanced technology, and their nuclear weapons lol.

what? we are not richer than we were in the 1940s, nor do we have more political willpower. the majority of american people supported entering WWII, but this hasn't been the case in any recent involvements.

 

[eschemat]

I'm not trying to say corrupt policing is good, but I'm saying it's significantly better than other types of policing, and is the best solution, and the best out of evils. Although the side note was saying that the US's policy is not as corrupt as you make it out to be. @Ballin4life: And that doesn't happen when the US government steps in. Mubarak was overthrown, and with no valid successor made, the military took over, whereas the US government could install someone if they were involved actively.

Egypt was a good dictatorship because the country was gaining economically very fast, and leading to a higher standard of living than pre-Mubarak.

Britain doesn't get involved because the UN won't let them.... Zimbabwe as a specific case. Of course, policemen have help though lol... policemen are just the catalyst for action, they can ask for help.

I'm not saying Vietnam or those wars were justified, but in the moments that legislation happened the people of the US were scared, and they wanted action to be taken. Japanese internment happened because they thought the Japanese could be spies.

Al-Qaeda has been pushed out of their stronghold, and the Taliban have little power anymore.

Every country is miles into debt lol. The difference is that the US is the one country that is never going to get screwed over from debt because of their far-reaching political influence. Obviously they're not going to jump into every conflict alone however, and not jump into extremely expensive prolonged conflicts. They'll pick and choose.

The US is the only empire left in the world, letting it do whatever the hell it wants now. No other country is even remotely as strong as the US.

As strongly opposed you guys are to the US being the policemen of the world, I really see no alternative to the US being the policemen except for no policemen at all. It's a lesser of two evils for me.

 

[Battlecow]

Americans won't let truly vile and atrocious shenanigans go down? Guantanamo? Vietnam? Japanese internment?



Attempts to combat communism failed miserably and made the US much worse off. The thing that brought down communism was its own economic failures.



There wouldn't be wide rings of terrorists planning attacks against the US. We would have much better relations with several countries. And a lot more money. Plus there's all those American lives lost.



Attempts to police the world have had a large impact on the US's fiscal situation.



The core values of the US are still non-interventionist though. Founding fathers etc.



You realize the US entered WWII because it got attacked by Japan right?

We didn't know about Guantanamo (and I wouldn't classify it as truly vile anyways). Vietnam wasn't truly vile either, just a cluster**** of good intentions and woeful mismanagement. The Japanese internment camps thing wasn't as big a deal as people make out; it was a mistake, yeah, but it was no Bataan death march. Tough times call for tough measures, and though we had a slip-up or two, I think our conduct in WWII is to be praised, on the whole. It certainly wasn't an atrocity; for heaven's sake, the camps were quite nice.

That's why I said it was a good idea in principle. Address that, don't make up imaginary arguments in which you're right.

Yes, we would be better off. I never said otherwise. My entire point is that we are and should remain an unselfish country, motivated to a large extent by altruism. Do you dispute my assertion that the world as a whole is better off for the policing actions in question?

Yes. True. Another thing I never denied. I maintain that it's a temporary setback which we'll bounce back from.

1. The founding fathers aren't the be all and end all, and I don't see where your "etc." is going. 2. The founding fathers are a product of the (mostly puritan) ideologies that shaped America's soul. We're supposed to be the model, perfect country. When we were weak, the founding fathers had a non-interventionist policy because it was more important to be an example than a force for good. When we grew strong as a result of this same "soul," it became more important to be a force than an example. I assert that the "city on a hill" deal takes precedence over the policies which the founding fathers happened to find practical in that particular situation (a situation that differs vastly from the current one).

"In the minds of many Americans, we took action in WWII in large part to defend Europe. The government, no doubt, had many selfish interests at heart, but a great deal of the public support for WWII came from a legitimate desire to protect our fellow free countries." Address this before reiterating an argument that's already been used.

People keep mentioning 'American wealth', are people forgetting that the American wealth is entirely dependent on Chinese loans?

corrupt policing is the only reason communism didn't work out too well.

Yes, we're in a tight financial spot. We still have an ungodly huge GDP, insane wealth per capita, and a military that could still kick the living **** out of any other two or three militaries in the world. If **** gets real, we'll raise taxes and cut spending. Boom. We are still wealthy.

Not sure entirely what you mean; corrupt policing, if interpreted loosely enough, can be fairly said to be the cause of most of the problems with most of the governments in history. Do you contend that communism wasn't an idiotic and almost hilariously flawed system, fated by its ill-conceived nature to grow into a trap for the weak-minded and a facilitator to the worst excesses of human nature? Lulz if so.

what? we are not richer than we were in the 1940s

We're far richer than we were in the 40s. Richer than we were in the 50s, as well, or the 60s or 70s, for that matter. People have nicer cars, bigger houses, more money in general. Look at any estimate of the average wealth per capita (in adjusted dollars or w/e) then vs. now if you don't believe me. Ballin' could tell you more, probably, since he knows more economics, but I'm positive about that. It's a mistake people make fairly often, since we see the 40s as a sort of explosion of wealth (which it was).

Note that I don't necessarily agree with every one of eschemat's points, although he is a total BRO and we're on the same AWESOME side.

Also it's amazing how much *** I'm kicking in this debate. I haven't won an argument this comprehensively since the last time my brother told me that glass was a slow-moving liquid. Suck it.

 

[ballin4life]

Well didn't we just nicely state the same things there.

Note that true free market anarchy has proven itself to be problematic. A certain amount of governmental trade regulation tends to be required.

pot kettle.

don't start talking about free market anarchy in this thread, because it will derail way too quickly.

Agreed, I just don't like when people throw out the word "anarchy" when they don't really know what they're talking about.

I'm not trying to say corrupt policing is good, but I'm saying it's significantly better than other types of policing, and is the best solution, and the best out of evils. Although the side note was saying that the US's policy is not as corrupt as you make it out to be. @Ballin4life: And that doesn't happen when the US government steps in. Mubarak was overthrown, and with no valid successor made, the military took over, whereas the US government could install someone if they were involved actively.

On corrupt policing being "significantly better" than other types of policing - I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany would agree.

I also don't necessarily think that all US policy is corrupt (in the sense that it's intentionally bad). It seems more like it's unintentionally bad.

Egypt was a good dictatorship because the country was gaining economically very fast, and leading to a higher standard of living than pre-Mubarak.

correlation causation.

I'm not saying Vietnam or those wars were justified, but in the moments that legislation happened the people of the US were scared, and they wanted action to be taken. Japanese internment happened because they thought the Japanese could be spies.

Yes, but as we see with these cases sometimes acting on fear leads to worse results.

Al-Qaeda has been pushed out of their stronghold, and the Taliban have little power anymore.

But they (and many others in their countries) certainly have a lot more hate for America now.

Every country is miles into debt lol. The difference is that the US is the one country that is never going to get screwed over from debt because of their far-reaching political influence. Obviously they're not going to jump into every conflict alone however, and not jump into extremely expensive prolonged conflicts. They'll pick and choose.

The US is in far more debt relative to GDP than most. That's in spite of the world's largest GDP.

The US is the only empire left in the world, letting it do whatever the hell it wants now. No other country is even remotely as strong as the US.

Empires always fall when they overextend themselves.

As strongly opposed you guys are to the US being the policemen of the world, I really see no alternative to the US being the policemen except for no policemen at all. It's a lesser of two evils for me.

What's wrong with no policeman? If a country does something truly huge to other countries (e.g. WWII) then countries can band together in war against the offender. There doesn't need to be one central "policeman".

We didn't know about Guantanamo (and I wouldn't classify it as truly vile anyways). Vietnam wasn't truly vile either, just a cluster**** of good intentions and woeful mismanagement. The Japanese internment camps thing wasn't as big a deal as people make out; it was a mistake, yeah, but it was no Bataan death march. Tough times call for tough measures, and though we had a slip-up or two, I think our conduct in WWII is to be praised, on the whole. It certainly wasn't an atrocity; for heaven's sake, the camps were quite nice.

Interesting how the leaders can hide offenses and hide the magnitude of those offenses from the people, isn't it?

Also Japanese internment is still pretty awful bro. Let's not forget Jim Crow laws et all too.

That's why I said it was a good idea in principle. Address that, don't make up imaginary arguments in which you're right.

So the argument based on what actually happened is an "imaginary argument". I only wish you could be the one responding here, as I lack your talent for clearly expressing the magnitude of stupidity in a given statement.

Yes, we would be better off. I never said otherwise. My entire point is that we are and should remain an unselfish country, motivated to a large extent by altruism. Do you dispute my assertion that the world as a whole is better off for the policing actions in question?

Yes.

1. The founding fathers aren't the be all and end all, and I don't see where your "etc." is going. 2. The founding fathers are a product of the (mostly puritan) ideologies that shaped America's soul. We're supposed to be the model, perfect country. When we were weak, the founding fathers had a non-interventionist policy because it was more important to be an example than a force for good. When we grew strong as a result of this same "soul," it became more important to be a force than an example. I assert that the "city on a hill" deal takes precedence over the policies which the founding fathers happened to find practical in that particular situation (a situation that differs vastly from the current one).

You're appealing to an impulse that I don't necessarily see within the "spirit" of America. I think inasmuch as we can appeal to the "spirit" of America, the founding fathers would be a good guide (if something wasn't supported by America from the beginning of its existence, how can one argue that it is integral to the American identity?)

"In the minds of many Americans, we took action in WWII in large part to defend Europe. The government, no doubt, had many selfish interests at heart, but a great deal of the public support for WWII came from a legitimate desire to protect our fellow free countries." Address this before reiterating an argument that's already been used.

This simply isn't true on the face of things. Sure, the US was supplying weapons to the Allies before entering the war. But the US only entered the war in force when it was directly attacked. I only brought this up as an example of the US's historically noninterventionist policy

We're far richer than we were in the 40s. Richer than we were in the 50s, as well, or the 60s or 70s, for that matter. People have nicer cars, bigger houses, more money in general. Look at any estimate of the average wealth per capita (in adjusted dollars or w/e) then vs. now if you don't believe me. Ballin' could tell you more, probably, since he knows more economics, but I'm positive about that. It's a mistake people make fairly often, since we see the 40s as a sort of explosion of wealth (which it was).

Yup. I don't see how anyone could say that we aren't richer than we were in the 40s. It's especially ironic given the medium of communication (hint: the internet and computers didn't exist in the 40s. Those alone have contributed to a MASSIVE increase in wealth.)

Also it's amazing how much *** I'm kicking in this debate. I haven't won an argument this comprehensively since the last time my brother told me that glass was a slow-moving liquid. Suck it.

see blue portion of my response. gg no re pwned owned best better gameshark imbahax 100% SNIFF kthxbai

 

[Ocean]

I did not mean richer in an individual sense, but as a country.

 

[ballin4life]

I did not mean richer in an individual sense, but as a country.

What do you mean? What metric are you using?

I'd say if the individuals in a country are all richer on average then the country is richer on average.

Or you could just look at GDP or something and see that it has gone up tremendously since the 40s.

So what exactly do you mean here?

 

[Ocean]

the country itself has sunk farther into debt since the '40s.
I don't know about you, but I do not consider anything, whether it is a country or a person, to be rich when it has such a ridiculous amount of debt.