Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is a huge point of contention as far as foreign policy is concerned and I know both sides are as split on this as possible. I for one believe that not only could we patrol the world, but it is our moral obligation. In my opinion, it made every bit of sense when Dennis Prager said something along the lines of , "why should LA have a police force but not the world"? The world is a bad place, despise the naivete of some. I know that may not be the popular opinion here, but I'm interested in what others have to say. Keep in mind this isn't a topic I've really debated people on so I'm open to all opinions and to learn something. Could we? And if we could, should we?

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is a huge point of contention as far as foreign policy is concerned and I know both sides are as split on this as possible. I for one believe that not only could we patrol the world, but it is our moral obligation. In my opinion, it made every bit of sense when Dennis Prager said something along the lines of , "why should LA have a police force but not the world"? The world is a bad place, despise the naivete of some. I know that may not be the popular opinion here, but I'm interested in what others have to say. Keep in mind this isn't a topic I've really debated people on so I'm open to all opinions and to learn something. Could we? And if we could, should we?

We should and we do. No one else will.

Does that make it right?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Does that make it right?

Moral Obligation makes it right, yes.

Yea but you'll have opposition telling you, "who are you to...".

I think thats already how it is, and its accepted.

Gonna sidestep the moral debate altogether. In the documentary Why We Fight, a Bush administration official was interviewed and asked if he thought America should be the World's police. His response was basically "Yes, because if we aren't it, someone else will be." That's really all there is to say about the role of morality in geo-politics. In a moral world there would be no world police, but in a moral world every country would be prosperous and its people happy and peaceful, and this would all be achieved without ever impeding on another country. That's not the world will we live in though; there will always be super-powers and those super-powers will always project their power across the world.

As is usually the case, the problem isn't the concept so much as it's the execution. Having a country like America around to smash dickheads like ISIS is useful. The problem is that we just suck at it. In our world policing we tend to do more harm then help in the long-run. As well, our policing is influenced too much by special interest groups.

Ok so you're saying we should but our execution blows.

I think the US should use the tool of the UN to filter their policing and make it more just. But in essence, I think the US using it's military power to fight injustice is not a bad thing, however in practice it has often been somewhat corrupted, so that while the talk was about freedom and justice, the actual reasons were more to further US interests often even considerably to the detriment of the people that were allegedly being helped.

I wouldn't have anything to do with the impotent entity known as the UN. A group run by totalitarian leaders has no use.

I guess as far as totalitarian institutions go, impotent ones are some of the better ones..

Then how would you use the UN to our benefit? They do nothing but harm.

I would file "work in conjunction with X friends" under the "sounds nice but isn't realistic" category. "Work with the UN instead of catering to your own interests" implies that the UN is all on the level and its individual members aren't all trying to work toward their own interests. The UN is impotent specifically because the countries that make it up are all pulling in opposite directions and no concrete decisions ever get made.

I guess fundamentally this comes down to the age old debate of democracy versus totalitarianism. Totalitarian systems are susceptible to corruption and open maliciousness but they also get shit done (for better or worse). Democratic systems are more accountable but tend to be so bogged down in bureaucracy that it takes forever for any progress to be made.

eg. Thousands of innocent people have been butchered by ISIS while the UN hum-haws. Would you really say that the death of thousands through inaction is preferable to decisive action taken by a totalitarian authority?

I do think America has a responsibility as the world's preeminent power to ensure global security and enforce global norms. However that should mean setting a good example for other countries to follow. If we want Russia to stop shielding countries like Syria for instance, we should stop automatically covering for our buddies when they do something wrong just because they're our buddies.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I wouldn't have anything to do with the impotent entity known as the UN. A group run by totalitarian leaders has no use.
Fun fact: The USA has used the veto more times than Russia has.

I think we should only in the most DIRE of circumstances. Otherwise I say let countries deal with their own problems. Also consider all the resources we'd be wasting in order to police the ENTIRE world. People in America should come first, once we solve our own problems then we can worry about the rest of the world.

Plus look at our justice system..we can barely police ourselves. Our system is so flawed it's actually extremely disturbing and depressing all at the same time.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I would file "work in conjunction with X friends" under the "sounds nice but isn't realistic" category. "Work with the UN instead of catering to your own interests" implies that the UN is all on the level and its individual members aren't all trying to work toward their own interests. The UN is impotent specifically because the countries that make it up are all pulling in opposite directions and no concrete decisions ever get made.

I guess fundamentally this comes down to the age old debate of democracy versus totalitarianism. Totalitarian systems are susceptible to corruption and open maliciousness but they also get shit done (for better or worse). Democratic systems are more accountable but tend to be so bogged down in bureaucracy that it takes forever for any progress to be made.

eg. Thousands of innocent people have been butchered by ISIS while the UN hum-haws. Would you really say that the death of thousands through inaction is preferable to decisive action taken by a totalitarian authority?

Considering that the thousands being killed by ISIS were killed by a group that only came to power because of a vacuum created by previous decisive action by a "totalitarian authority" (if you want to call it that), I think that the question is a bit more complex than what you pose

Originally posted by Surtur
I think we should only in the most DIRE of circumstances. Otherwise I say let countries deal with their own problems. Also consider all the resources we'd be wasting in order to police the ENTIRE world. People in America should come first, once we solve our own problems then we can worry about the rest of the world.

Plus look at our justice system..we can barely police ourselves. Our system is so flawed it's actually extremely disturbing and depressing all at the same time. that's a very isolationist stance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Considering that the thousands being killed by ISIS were killed by a group that only came to power because of a vacuum created by previous decisive action by a "totalitarian authority" (if you want to call it that), I think that the question is a bit more complex than what you pose Not really. Pointing out the incompetency of that totalitarian authority is a criticism of that specific authority, not the system itself.

That said, I'm not implying that it's a simple question. On the contrary, this is some pretty complex shit and I don't have a clear stance on it at all. I am contesting your assertion that impotence is preferable to unilateral action, though.

Originally posted by psmith81992
that's a very isolationist stance.

Perhaps, but we have a whole f*ckload of things that are wrong with this country. Most of our resources should be spent on trying to solve those issues.

I see this as no different then a person wanting to protect and take care of their family more then they want to protect and take care of a stranger. Doesn't mean they hate the stranger or don't care what happens, it just means their family means more to them.

You're talking about two very different resources where the financial allocation to one isn't going to disrupt the other.

It's all about corporations and money and little about Policing or morality.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the US should use the tool of the UN to filter their policing and make it more just. But in essence, I think the US using it's military power to fight injustice is not a bad thing, however in practice it has often been somewhat corrupted, so that while the talk was about freedom and justice, the actual reasons were more to further US interests often even considerably to the detriment of the people that were allegedly being helped.

On the 20th anniversary of the Srebrinica massacre when Dutch UN troops pulled out and stood by while tens of thousands of people were slaughtered it's probably not a good idea to suggest the UN police anything. They're generally ineffectual at it due to lack of resource commitment and idiotic rules of engagement.

Somalia, Sierra Leone and South Sudan are other examples of how utterly useless UN remits are.

Well, to be fair to me, and I love being fair to me, I said the US should use or work with the UN. Not that the UN should do the policing.

At any rate, what is your opinion on the topic then? Are you against policing of any kind?

Can you conceive of any realistic scenario where the US works with the UN? At this point it would be downright unAmerican.

Badum tish

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, to be fair to me, and I love being fair to me, I said the US should use or work with the UN. Not that the UN should do the policing.

At any rate, what is your opinion on the topic then? Are you against policing of any kind?

The US should take responsibility for the effects of its economic exploitation it's wrought on smaller countries for decades. If it wants to not have to police the world then it should stop propping up corrupt governments that live the high life while the rest of their countries live in abject poverty. It should stop demonising any country that refuses to tow the line such as Cuba and Venezuela. It should stop being petty in regards to that by saying to allied countries that it won't trade with them if they trade with countries the US doesn't like. It's astonishing how petty their economic policy got. Refusing to allow bands to play the US if they'd played Cuba. It even tried to bully its allies directly. They lobbied the Scottish government to enact legislation that meant Scottish retailers could only import bananas from US owned plantations. It refused and so the US banned imports of Scottish cashmere wool.

I'm not saying the US is alone in doing this. European powers have been doing it for decades as well usually with former colonies. If France and Britain hadn't made a total f**k up of Niger, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Algeria, Congo etc they wouldn't be reaping so much problems from them now. France in particular.

Enact a more equitable foreign economic policy and it won't have to spend as much time policing the world.

I don't think you need a historical crash course as to why the US did what it did with Cuba and Venezuela, do you?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think you need a historical crash course as to why the US did what it did with Cuba and Venezuela, do you?

Hubris and xenophobia?

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're talking about two very different resources where the financial allocation to one isn't going to disrupt the other.

But the point is to properly poilice the entire world..we'd have to sink a lot more money into that then we currently do. Where are they going to get the money for that? Surely not by raising taxes.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think you need a historical crash course as to why the US did what it did with Cuba and Venezuela, do you?

Yeah. The US plundered Venezuelan oil reserves for over 80 years and the Venezuelan people had the audacity to elect someone who wouldn't take their shit any more. How dare they think the oil wasn't US property.

Cuba admittedly didn't do themselves any favours nationalising US companies properties but the US got far more out of the protectorate than Cuba ever did and as soon as both countries decided they'd had enough of the US economic exploitation it was toys out the pram for the US.

I don't think xenophobia had anything to do with it and Cuba didn't help itself aligning with the Soviet Union and parking missiles 90 miles from Florida.

You should probably reply to jaden's thought out post, rather than my joke.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think xenophobia had anything to do with it and Cuba didn't help itself aligning with the Soviet Union and parking missiles 90 miles from Florida.

Cuba would never have needed to turn to the Soviet Union if the US didn't think it had a divine right to continue to dominate the Cuban economy after the overthrow of the Batista regime. It even brought that coup on itself by stopping arms sales to Batista. Yet even before that if it actually enacted an equitable economic policy with regards to Cuba's resources and let Cubans benefit instead of allowing what little profit they did leave Cuba to go to the few then there wouldn't have been a Cuban revolution in the first place. So like I said, the US pushes countries to civil war by propping up dictators who serve their interests and then throws the toys out the pram when the people of those countries finally say enough is enough.

Granted. How'd that last 50 years of Communism under the Castro regime play out? The country looks like it never got out of 1959.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Granted. How'd that last 50 years of Communism under the Castro regime play out? The country looks like it never got out of 1959.

Yeah. That's my point regarding petty US economic policy towards countries that won't bend over and take it up the arse from them. They use their bully boy economic power to tell the world 'if you trade with Cuba we won't trade with you'. If the US stopped raping countries and plunging them into poverty and treated countries equitably in trade relations there wouldn't be half the problems across the world that there are and far fewer places would need to be 'policed' in the first place.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah. That's my point regarding petty US economic policy towards countries that won't bend over and take it up the arse from them. They use their bully boy economic power to tell the world 'if you trade with Cuba we won't trade with you'. If the US stopped raping countries and plunging them into poverty and treated countries equitably in trade relations there wouldn't be half the problems across the world that there are and far fewer places would need to be 'policed' in the first place.

While I agree with you there, look at the alternative. Cuba ended up fairing much worse. At least it was bringing a shitload of money in with the Mafia owned casinos. The disparity in wealth only got worse when Castro took over.

Originally posted by psmith81992
While I agree with you there, look at the alternative. Cuba ended up fairing much worse. At least it was bringing a shitload of money in with the Mafia owned casinos. The disparity in wealth only got worse when Castro took over.

If they'd just put their hands up and just say 'you know what...we made a **** ton of money off your country's resources...We'll let you finally make some from it now' that would be forgivable but instead they pretty much say 'well if we're not making any money off your resources then neither are you...have some sanctions'.

Police or Mafia?

Everyone is right in their own eyes.

No.

USA is focused on its serving its interests only. Policing the world is just an illusion.

Look at the examples of Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Palestine and Libya. They remind us about the double-standards of US foreign policy and the fact that US is focused on serving its interests only.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No.

USA is focused on its serving its interests only. Policing the world is just an illusion.

Look at the examples of Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Palestine and Libya. They remind us about the double-standards of US foreign policy and the fact that US is focused on serving its interests only.


This is a myth. While the US DOES focus on serving its interests, there have been plenty of times in the past 25 years alone where we have gone in as part of some humanitarian aid.

I'd say if they truly want us to police the world then the other countries have to chip in and pay us. What a great way to get out of debt, given all the countries we are in debt to exist in the world we'd be policing.

America doesn't so much give a shit about global justice and security as it does safeguarding its own interests.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
America doesn't so much give a shit about global justice and security as it does safeguarding its own interests.

That can be said about anyone but the US does care about global justice and security, as long as it doesn't interfere with its own interests.

Somebody who puts their own interests above justice doesn't deserve to be in charge of ensuring justice.

why should the US police the world?

have they perfected running a country

are the beliefs of America universal into other countries?

if humanity cannot even agree to peace then why the hell should it be policed/ ruled by a single country?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
America doesn't so much give a shit about global justice and security as it does safeguarding its own interests.



I'm sure your country cares though, right?

We haven't destabilized any regions of the world recently, so I'd make the claim we care more then America.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
We haven't destabilized any regions of the world recently, so I'd make the claim we care more then America.

If you haven't destabilized any regions then I doubt you could police a continent, let alone the world.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If you haven't destabilized any regions then I doubt you could police a continent, let alone the world.

I don't know which country he is from, but I doubt there is another so insolent to assume such a role.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
why should the US police the world?

have they perfected running a country

are the beliefs of America universal into other countries?

This is exactly why it would be silly for us to try. When this country becomes a Utopia then people can talk about policing the entire world.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is a huge point of contention as far as foreign policy is concerned and I know both sides are as split on this as possible. I for one believe that not only could we patrol the world, but it is our moral obligation. In my opinion, it made every bit of sense when Dennis Prager said something along the lines of , "why should LA have a police force but not the world"? The world is a bad place, despise the naivete of some. I know that may not be the popular opinion here, but I'm interested in what others have to say. Keep in mind this isn't a topic I've really debated people on so I'm open to all opinions and to learn something. Could we? And if we could, should we?

If I thought we could effectively police the world without expending trillions of dollars while bitching about food stamp users getting a break and cutting veterans' benefits among other things... oh and you know leaving most places we 'police' less stable than when we found them and birthing anti-American terrorists left and right.

The reason we have terrorists from places most people couldn't find on a map 20 years ago is because of American foreign policy, not because they 'hate our freedom' or some such BS.

Our moral obligation is to the people in this nation who prosper or suffer according to its foreign diplomacy and spending of wealth and resources. Fighting wars or police actions in Shit****istans all over the world is NOT morally correct nor is it honoring the social contract. Keep it home.

Yeah, I just can't see how any single country is morally obligated to police the entire world. Do other countries not have morals?

If they want us to police their lands then they should give us control of them.

Oh yes, it's not "a reason", it's "the reason", lol.

Then the question becomes "if we don't do it and someone else takes that mantle, do we object"?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh yes, it's not "a reason", it's "the reason", lol.

Then the question becomes "if we don't do it and someone else takes that mantle, do we object"?

But someone could never truly take up that mantle because we don't need other countries to police us, we have the resources to do it ourselves. To successfully police the world you'd need to have jurisdiction in every country on Earth.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If you haven't destabilized any regions then I doubt you could police a continent, let alone the world.

There isn't a country on this planet that has both the capability and moral justification to police the world.