Could/Should the US police the world?

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.

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.

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

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.