Should the USA be the policemen of the world?

[Battlecow]

**** if I didn't just lose another half-hour post to the smashboards gods. Short and sweet, then, I guess.

Blazed, I've been ignoring you (as in, you're on my ignore list) for a while because you have yet to present any arguments that I deem worthy of response. You can stop directing posts at me.

Lots of posts recently; guess I struck another nerve with the liberaler-than-thou internet elite. Good stuff.

You're unbelievable. Your economy is in trillions of dollars of debt. Why should you govern other countries? You can barely manage your own.

Rehash # 345,542,917: We have access to lots of money that we don't dip into because it would make life harder for Americans. Our country's in a bit of a rough spot, but still perfectly capable of policing itself and the world. Don't say "govern," because no one is proposing that we govern anyone but ourselves.

You failed to address any of my points. You do not have enough money to support this military, not to mention the activities of said military are laughably unethical. The entire reason for invading Iraq was to obtain oil. Don't deny this.

If it's not for raw minerals, it is to extrapolate political monopolies.

I addressed all of your points, but I'll do it again. Rehash #345,542,918: We have lots of money, and we can continue supporting the military, even if it means cutting various things or raising some taxes. Yes, the debt is a problem. No, it doesn't mean we're incapable of defending ourselves and others. Also, I deny that the only reason for invading Iraq was oil. Even if it was a consideration- and I'm not saying it was- it was not the only one.

Also I didn't know "extrapolate" could be used in that sense. Something new every day, huh?

Oh, so I need sources, but you don't? Typical American.

#345,542,919: As ballin and I have said many times in the past, I need sources if I'm presenting contested facts. The arguments I've been making are common sense. Would you have had Payne quoting from the papers of the day or something just to make his argument seem more academic? This goes for blazed and whatsisname that I'm quoting later as well.

And you use that basis to somehow debunk my claims- don't contradict yourself.

See above. You need to back that claim up because I contest it (you can't back it up, of course, because it's idiotic).

See, my point is, the United States own economy is collapsing. There are no shortages of jobs in any other developed country to the extent the United States is suffering, and you're really going to tell me, and somehow convince yourself, that the economy is not doing poorly?

1. Are you addicted to crack cocaine? How many times do I have to admit that the US economy is doing relatively poorly at the moment before you stop trying to shove the arguments you think I should be making down my throat?

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

The first developed countries with higher unemployment rates than us that I noticed were Greece, Ireland, and Spain. I'm sure there are others. Please stop saying things that aren't true; it makes it terribly hard to debate sensibly.

Enjoy losing your prized AAA rating.

One rating, by one agency. We've never defaulted on a debt. The whole thing got blown out of proportion.

I think your dollar is not doing so well, no. What here is so hard to understand? Even other Americans are telling you you're stupid.

You're missing the point here. Rehash #345,542,919: Our military is still capable of defending ourselves and others, our dollar is still a leading reserve currency, and etc. etc. economics boringness that I already covered last post.

Your military is definitely strong- and excessively over-funded, to the point other areas of interest are neglected.

That's the point. Fix your own country before you meddle with lesser developed countries which somehow, your arrogance and self-entitlement deem appropriate.

That sentence doesn't make sense either, but what the hell, we've been through this. Okay, if that's your point- and you sure did have a lot of others before this- it comes down to rehash #345,542,921: You think that we should cut back on military spending and adopt an isolationist policy. I think that both world wars and other situations- like that in Libya- show the problem with this idea. We have the power- we have the responsibility.

Firstly, good job comparing what America is now to a bunch of Christian fanatics that hung people because of their own insecurities.
Secondly, unless you want every other country to go into a 14 trillion dollar debt, then be my guest.

What the puritans were like personally is beside the point. Some of their values are part of what America is today. The "city on a hill" thing is kind of our schtick. As for your "Secondly" sentence- proofreading, people. It helps. I swear. This is getting annoying fast. Also it should be obvious that we have problems as well as good points and that not every country should imitate those. Less snark, more think.

Oh god I lol'd but I also raged pretty hard.

That's one of the most basic principles of formal debate: sources for your arguments.

Gonna excuse this because you obviously haven't read through the posts where Ballin' and I carefully and repeatedly explain it. See rehash #345,542,919 above.

Swearing doesn't make you a cool kid or a good debator.

No, it doesn't. I thought it was a writing thing that was kind of irrelevant to my debate. Less snark, more think.

All I really see in your posts is large servings of arrogance/ignorance with a side of no sources. I can't dip your argument into the source,
because then your argument doesn't taste very good.

I really hate to say this but this is very common of what I see in America. Not among everybody for sure, but damn there are so many people here that think like you do.

Do you even have an argument, bro? Your post sort of just generically dismisses my arguments without engaging them and then spends the rest of its time trying and failing to be clever at my expense, and then ends with a cut-and-paste "Ah, how sad that my country is so full of people who don't hate it."

You claim that I'm "ignorant" at one point. I don't think I am. What have I said that strikes you as ignorant? You could elaborate, but I don't think you will. I don't think you can, for the same reason that no one since the first couple pages of this debate has done any actual new argument. You'd rather pooh-pooh at how gauche patriotism is in this day and age than engage in actual discussion.

@ macman- Forum etiquette dictates that we not double-post regardless of the content of each (there are a few exceptions). No biggie, just thought you should know.

The difference is that we adhere to the law of the US because we live here and we are forced to be abide by the US's rules. We have to adopt the US's perspective about right and wrong if we want to be a resident of the US. The world is different because the World doesn't have a set consensus on what is right or wrong. There is no global rulebook. There is no world government. Like I said before, the US trying to police other nations is like admins from other forums coming here to try and police us.

The US is allowed to set moral codes for the world because we, along with 99.9% of the rest of the world, subscribe to a basic view of morality. Do unto others, etc. If nothing's wrong, then it's not wrong to set moral boundaries, so we're cool all over.

Also, I said that you couldn't argue two contradictory arguments at the same time. That's a reasonable postition. Don't twist my words.

 

[Battlecow]

****, accidental Double post. I blame the system. Ironic considering I called out macman for his triple. If a mod can edit these two together or something, go to it.

 

[Crooked Crow]

So, I'll try to summarize everything:

- Battlecow is right- despite our evidence and the lack of his
- We're stupid because of aforementioned thought process
- Battlecow once again, resorts to ad hominum
- Battlecow is definitely nationalistic- discussing things further with him is a waste of time

Peace.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Okay I'm not responding to the rest of the garbage that you wrote down because you're obviously just brushing off my criticisms of your argument. Part of being in the Proving Grounds is to have some people point out flaws in your arguments, not debate all the time.
At least that's what happened to me.

You claim that I'm "ignorant" at one point. I don't think I am.

My good Lord.
You don't think you are?
Well, I'm stumped.
__________________________________________________________________

What have I said that strikes you as ignorant?

My sources? My god, is this blazedaces 2 or something? What the hell do I need sources for?

Again, ignorant to formal debate.
__________________________________________________________________

here in America we generally try to provide reasonable arguments to back up any inflammatory and ignorant claims we might make.

"Here in America".
It seems like you're just making America out to be superior once again.
__________________________________________________________________

Sucks. Luckily, we believe in freedom of speech in America.

Again, it comes across as you bragging about it. Freedom of speech is overall a good thing, but it has come to piss a lot of people off. Read: Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, other hate groups.
__________________________________________________________________

You're a fool, and everyone here- including the people you're siding with- knows it, whether they admit it or not

If calling people stupid makes you stupid, and you just implied that I was stupid, that makes you...? Oh snap! We're back in third grade again. Seriously though, cut the crap, because we both know that "stupid" is a really succinct and accurate way of describing some people and actions.

__________________________________________________________________

You could elaborate, but I don't think you will.

Oh, you thought I wouldn't?
__________________________________________________________________

Okay well I'm done pointing out those things. I'm not going to use any more because as I'm going through your previous posts, my brain's beginning to hurt more and more.

 

[Battlecow]

Okay I'm not responding to the rest of the garbage that you wrote down because you're obviously just brushing off my criticisms of your argument. Part of being in the Proving Grounds is to have some people point out flaws in your arguments, not debate all the time.
At least that's what happened to me.

You didn't make any criticisms in your last post that I didn't address.

Again, ignorant to formal debate.

Explained it in my post. Address said explanation if you want to continue along this path. You're arguing in poor faith.

"Here in America".
It seems like you're just making America out to be superior once again.

I do think America's superior. I've made this clear a number of times. You're still ohfer.

Again, it comes across as you bragging about it. Freedom of speech is overall a good thing, but it has come to piss a lot of people off. Read: Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, other hate groups.

This is beside the point. How does it show my ignorance?

Oh, you thought I wouldn't?

And, predictably, you didn't. Any objective third party would confirm that you have refused to contribute to the debate in any serious way or engage with me in any serious way in discussion. Less snark, more think.

Okay well I'm done pointing out those things. I'm not going to use any more because as I'm going through your previous posts, my brain's beginning to hurt more and more.

Aaaaand, a grand total of zero productive or meaningful points. You're on a roll.

@ Yhii- I have made a number of arguments which you have not meaningfully responded too. You can sit there and say that you've won, but you obviously haven't- once again, an ignorant kid makes a few tired points, I rehash the old arguments, and they go away. On the plus side, I'm now more confident in my arguments than ever. Peace out, dude. Nice whooping you.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Alright, like Yhii, I'm stopping this.

Obviously you're too arrogant to admit any of your mistakes or faults.

And yes, this is going to boost your already morbidly obese patriotic ego like hell. Why? Because you're going to dismiss this post, like all of the others against you, as either "less snark, more think", or just as "he's stopping here, so I must've won because I keep posting!"

 

[Battlecow]

You're saying things that aren't true. For example, I'm right because neither of you are capable of rebutting my arguments, not because I "got the last word" or whatever. Any objective third party would go through this thread and say "Yeah, I may or may not agree with Battlecow, but these other guys sure haven't responded in any meaningful way to his arguments," because that's objective fact. One last time:

-We are the only ones capable of policing the world, and therefore have a moral responsibility to do so because...

-The world needs policing (see: World Wars)

-We are capable, financially, of policing the world, because our debts can be payed off, even if it involves lowering the standard of living for Americans

-We can be trusted to act as a force for good, because although our military has acted poorly on a relatively small scale in the past, on a larger scale it is directed by the American people, who, like most people, are moral enough on the whole.

The degree to which we should police, and even whether "police" should be replaced with "Occasionally interfere with, when absolutely necessary," is still up for grabs.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Enjoy paying back 14 trillion bucky-doodles.

lol

 

[Battlecow]

Snark Level: OVER 9000!!!!!1

Think level: Still hanging stubbornly around that 0 mark.

Hey, maybe if you google more "clever" pictures, you won't have to think about how ignorant and narrow your entire worldview is!

O wait

Holy ****

Just noticed that we're behind Germany in mobile phones per capita

Might as well give up now. Good-bye, cruel world.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Still using the snark/think excuse? Nothing lasts forever you know.

I'm sorry if that hurt your perfect views on glorious, God-blessed Murrica.
Sadly, most of those things are true. Not all, for example the **** rates are much higher in South Africa.
Regardless, this ends my attempts at using Windex on your muddy window of the world.

I see that your post right there seems a little panicked, as well.

And to clarify, I don't hate America by many means at all.
However, blind patriotism of any country sparks off my fireworks.

 

[Battlecow]

It's not an excuse. You are snarking instead of thinking. Notice how you have yet to respond seriously to ANY of my points, and still manage to get in clever little graphics about how much America sucks?

It didn't hurt anything. I was not surprised, and I didn't bother checking its accuracy (although it's pretty funny that they couldn't check their facts) because they're devoid of context, and, more importantly, tired and overdone. You are not original; you're one of about 10,000 macbook--wielding little know-it-alls who'd love to bring in their own clever graphics.

My patriotism isn't blind, either, but don't worry! You can keep stating things and then refusing to back them up with reasoned argument! It's only the debate hall, after all.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

It's not an excuse. You are snarking instead of thinking. Notice how you have yet to respond seriously to ANY of my points

You know why I can't respond seriously? Because any "arguments and points full of thinking and not snark" that you bring up are absolutely hilarious.
I'm just dumbfounded if you thought I'd reply seriously to any of your posts in here.

It didn't hurt anything. I was not surprised, and I didn't bother checking its accuracy

more importantly, tired and overdone. You are not original; you're one of about 10,000 macbook--wielding little know-it-alls who'd love to bring in their own clever graphics.

You sure it didn't hurt anything?

My patriotism isn't blind, either, but don't worry! You can keep stating things and then refusing to back them up with reasoned argument! It's only the debate hall, after all.

As if you couldn't get any more contradictory than you already are.

 

[Battlecow]

>Admits that he hasn't tried to debate seriously

>Acts as if he's somehow won the debate

You're an ***hole. Lol.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Ah, there we go.

I never said I won the debate. I didn't even join in.
My original intent was to just point out the flaws in your argument, not debate.

And there you go stooping to the level of insults.

 

[-Jumpman-]

>Admits that he hasn't tried to debate seriously

>Acts as if he's somehow won the debate

You're an ***hole. Lol.

I just looked through about 5 pages of this thread, and I have to admit your posts are impressive.

You resort to ad hominem arguments without any valid reason, should there ever be one. Your posts are constructed in a way that ridicules other debaters. This definitely doesn't contribute to respectful debate.

I have no idea who gave you access to the debate hall, but I seriously doubt his abilities. You're also part of the reason I never even started posting here, but that might be my high standards.

 

[Battlecow]

I just looked through about 5 pages of this thread, and I have to admit your posts are impressive.

You resort to ad hominem arguments without any valid reason, should there ever be one. Your posts are constructed in a way that ridicules other debaters. This definitely doesn't contribute to respectful debate.

I have no idea who gave you access to the debate hall, but I seriously doubt his abilities. You're also part of the reason I never even started posting here, but that might be my high standards.

Argh. Every time I read a post like this, I go "O ****, this guy sounds at least somewhat respectable and reasonable (not complimenting you here, I'm just saying that you didn't go "LOOOOOL AMERICA SUX SILLY REDNECK LOLOL." Omni-whatever set a pretty low baseline.)- I must have, in my sleep-deprived patriotism, posted something genuinely dumb and offensive."

Then I go and read the thread.

No way, bro. Just no way. You're not looking past the surface level "battlecow insults people" thing. I have, in this thread, debated well. Several people have come into the thread and then made the same flawed arguments, loudly. I rebuked them with cold, hard facts, and insulted them when they were obnoxious. 'S just truth.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Forget it.

 

[Glöwworm]

I lol'd at internet speed. Must be nice to have that kind of internet speed

 

[-Jumpman-]

Argh. Every time I read a post like this, I go "O ****, this guy sounds at least somewhat respectable and reasonable (not complimenting you here, I'm just saying that you didn't go "LOOOOOL AMERICA SUX SILLY REDNECK LOLOL." Omni-whatever set a pretty low baseline.)- I must have, in my sleep-deprived patriotism, posted something genuinely dumb and offensive."

Then I go and read the thread.

No way, bro. Just no way. You're not looking past the surface level "battlecow insults people" thing. I have, in this thread, debated well. Several people have come into the thread and then made the same flawed arguments, loudly. I rebuked them with cold, hard facts, and insulted them when they were obnoxious. 'S just truth.

Regardless of your "cold, hard facts", insults are unacceptable in debates. I myself am very impatient and tended to insult people when they lack ability to comprehend arguments, but that results in derailing of threads (in online debate) and often isn't justified, for one doesn't always see one's fallacies before insulting opponents in debates.

So simply put, good arguments do not provide justification for insults.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I rebuked them with cold, hard facts, and insulted them when they were obnoxious. 'S just truth.

 

[Ocean]

omnicron, you're not adding anything more to this thread than he is. in fact, you're adding less, because he actually presented an argument. we get it, you don't like battlecow.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Well I guess I got too much into having fun instead of debating, my apologies.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

The USA should not be the policemen of the world.

I have to agree with BPC on the first page: putting one country in charge or giving one country that responsibility is not a good idea. While the U.S. has forces that could probably maintain peace, giving the U.S. or any other country that responsibility/position would encourage abuse of power. The "policemen" would make decisions based on their own selfish motives rather than the collective good of the entire world.

 

[Battlecow]

Regardless of your "cold, hard facts", insults are unacceptable in debates. I myself am very impatient and tended to insult people when they lack ability to comprehend arguments, but that results in derailing of threads (in online debate) and often isn't justified, for one doesn't always see one's fallacies before insulting opponents in debates.

So simply put, good arguments do not provide justification for insults.

have no idea who gave you access to the debate hall, but I seriously doubt his abilities. You're also part of the reason I never even started posting here, but that might be my high standards.

The prize.

You just won it.

The USA should not be the policemen of the world.

I have to agree with BPC on the first page: putting one country in charge or giving one country that responsibility is not a good idea. While the U.S. has forces that could probably maintain peace, giving the U.S. or any other country that responsibility/position would encourage abuse of power. The "policemen" would make decisions based on their own selfish motives rather than the collective good of the entire world.

Rehash # 345,542,922: Someone has to police the world (see both World Wars and Libya for examples of situations requiring police action) and the US is the only entity with the power to do so.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

The prize.

You just won it.



Rehash # 345,542,922: Someone has to police the world (see both World Wars and Libya for examples of situations requiring police action) and the US is the only entity with the power to do so.

I know what I said is nothing new, and I understand where you're coming from. If only we could get organized and form a group that is supposed to ensure world peace - oh wait...

It certainly doesn't help that the U.S. has dug itself into a hole of debt.

 

[-Jumpman-]

The prize.

You just won it.



Rehash # 345,542,922: Someone has to police the world (see both World Wars and Libya for examples of situations requiring police action) and the US is the only entity with the power to do so.

It's not an insult, get your stuff straight. But the fact that you took the bait makes it funnier.

 

[Battlecow]

I know what I said is nothing new, and I understand where you're coming from. If only we could get organized and form a group that is supposed to ensure world peace - oh wait...

It certainly doesn't help that the U.S. has dug itself into a hole of debt.

The UN is a toothless dog. If we could give it the power to actually police, then maybe America could step down. Not until then.

The debt is bad, but it doesn't affect our ability to police.

It's not an insult, get your stuff straight. But the fact that you took the bait makes it funnier.

Look, helpful hint here- the best way to get out of this with dignity mostly intact is just to not post in this thread anymore. It was clearly an insult, and if it was meant as "bait" (it obviously wasn't) then you're a troll. Congratulations.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

The debt is bad, but it doesn't affect our ability to police.

I have to disagree with this. More $ = more forces with better equipment. More forces with better equipment = better policing.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I have to disagree with this. More $ = more forces with better equipment. More forces with better equipment = better policing.

Agreed. Let's face it, how can a country police other countries when it can barely take care of itself and its citizens. Even then, for a country to police another would mean the policed country would view the policing country (U.S. in this case) as a bunch of tyrants. I'll hazard a guess that many countries already see us as tyrants.

 

[Battlecow]

I have to disagree with this. More $ = more forces with better equipment. More forces with better equipment = better policing.

Rehash # 345,542,923:

That makes sense from a household-economics standpoint, but we're talking about the wealth of nations. The US is perfectly capable of paying off the debt and still keeping up the current (overwhelming) amount of military funding, and indeed, we'd cut other things (medicare/social security come to mind) long before we touched anything but the very most unnecessary military projects.

Agreed. Let's face it, how can a country police other countries when it can barely take care of itself and its citizens. Even then, for a country to police another would mean the policed country would view the policing country (U.S. in this case) as a bunch of tyrants. I'll hazard a guess that many countries already see us as tyrants.

Magenta. Ow.

OK, look, you guys need to read the thread. I swear that that is WORD FOR WORD what nine other people have posted. Read my responses to them, and then ask for clarification if your point is not addressed.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Rehash # 345,542,923:

That makes sense from a household-economics standpoint, but we're talking about the wealth of nations. The US is perfectly capable of paying off the debt and still keeping up the current (overwhelming) amount of military funding, and indeed, we'd cut other things (medicare/social security come to mind) long before we touched anything but the very most unnecessary military projects.



Magenta. Ow.

OK, look, you guys need to read the thread. I swear that that is WORD FOR WORD what nine other people have posted. Read my responses to them, and then ask for clarification if your point is not addressed.

Seeing as I just joined, I didn't feel like going through 12 pages of posts.

I agree that the U.S. could cut spending and get out of this debt - but while keeping up with its enormous military funding? From this source, 54% of the U.S. budget went to the military in 2009. Without drastic, unreasonable, and probably dangerous cuts to everything else, I don't see how the U.S. could cut spending to get out of its $15 trillion debt.

 

[Battlecow]

Pretty sure there are deficit reduction plans on the table right now that slash trillions off of that without ever touching military spending. Keep that up for a couple decades, and voilà. Even if we did have to cut military spending, there's a ****load of expensive and unnecessary gadgetry that we could throw out without affecting our actual military prowess (for example, I get paid $12 an hour by the army to sit in a lab and re-analyze soil samples, simply because they think I might become an engineer someday and maybe have a better chance of joining up with them if they give me a cushy, useless job).

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Pretty sure there are deficit reduction plans on the table right now that slash trillions off of that without ever touching military spending. Keep that up for a couple decades, and voilà. Even if we did have to cut military spending, there's a ****load of expensive and unnecessary gadgetry that we could throw out without affecting our actual military prowess (for example, I get paid $12 an hour by the army to sit in a lab and re-analyze soil samples, simply because they think I might become an engineer someday and maybe have a better chance of joining up with them if they give me a cushy, useless job).

The question is if they are being put into action.

The U.S. might have enough money or military power to be the policemen of the world. But just because they can, does that mean they should?

 

[Battlecow]

Rehash # 345,542,924: Someone has to police the world (see both World Wars and Libya for examples of situations requiring police action) and the US is the only entity with the power to do so.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

There is a difference between policing and helping.

 

[Battlecow]

What do you mean by that? What I call "policing" might possibly be "helping" to you, depending on definitions. But most people here have been arguing that the US has no business interfering in other countries' **** at all.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

What do you mean by that? What I call "policing" might possibly be "helping" to you, depending on definitions. But most people here have been arguing that the US has no business interfering in other countries' **** at all.

How do you define "policing?"

And I take it that you are arguing that the U.S. should be the "policeman of the world" because they have the resources - am I correct?

 

[Battlecow]

I think I've stated my positions quite clearly. But yes, our powerful military is one of the main reasons why we should police the world.

My definition of policing in this case is- off the top of my head, I can maybe refine it if you want- enforcing universal moral laws on a global scale in the broadest sense (i.e. preventing atrocities and unjust wars of conquest, etc.)

 

[StealthyGunnar]

-We are the only ones capable of policing the world, and therefore have a moral responsibility to do so because...

-The world needs policing (see: World Wars)

I agree with this.

-We are capable, financially, of policing the world, because our debts can be payed off, even if it involves lowering the standard of living for Americans

So we should police the world just because we have the resources? This way of thinking is flawed.

-We can be trusted to act as a force for good, because although our military has acted poorly on a relatively small scale in the past, on a larger scale it is directed by the American people, who, like most people, are moral enough on the whole.

I have to come back to abuse of power here. You're assuming that 1) the military and the government can be trusted, and 2) most Americans are moral on the whole. I don't know about you, but most people I've met are *******s.

Also, I don't think we can safely assume that the people's attitudes toward the government and the military won't change if their living conditions diminish.

The degree to which we should police, and even whether "police" should be replaced with "Occasionally interfere with, when absolutely necessary," is still up for grabs.

I agree.

 

[Battlecow]

Well, not "just" because we have the resources. I don't believe that Americans would be in favor of, say, a war of conquest for personal profit, or a blatant massacre of civilians. The point is that the government can't act with impunity, and that most Americans will flip out if they see us genociding peeps or stuff like that.