Should the USA be the World's Policeman

[antryg]

As the US seems to be moving closer and closer to a war with Iraq and continues searching for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan debate continues on the US military role in world affairs. When is US military action justified? The Soviet Union was the "Evil Empire" for decades and we didn't invade. They had nuclear weapons. Just because another country wants to develope nuclear weapons; does that automatically give the US the right to stop them? We didn't with Pakistan and they haven't shown any great love for the United States.

When Iraq invaded Iran that was not seen as worthy of US intervention yet when the same people invaded Kuwait we did intervene. In both of these cases the world stage was filled with outcry. "Do something!" "Don't do anything!"

My personal feeling is that the United States tries to do "what is right" but that this attitude is leavened by a heavy dose of self interest. Since this forum brings together people from diverse backgrounds and locations I would like to hear what other members think the role of the United States should be on the world stage.

[TheCrimsomBlade]

O.K. IRAC where's the fire you were being stupid in a get smart zone.
that will be Tommahawk Missle and tank parked in your back yard for a month, aiming at your forhead!

[esquire]

The US should pay their dues to the UN and start working with them as an equal partner, instead of unilaterally. As for the US doing what is right, I think that only extends to their need for oil.

[esquire]

Originally posted by TheCrimsomBlade: O.K. IRAC

It's spelled Iraq...

[wellard]

Does the world really have a say in what the U.S. does regarding policy.

Genraly they mean well, but there execution is sometimes off. then at othertimes its actions are so grossly the will of a powerfull goverment backer that it leaves the rest of the world stunned into disbelief. I for one would like to see America act on the world stage and genuinely appriciate a lot of its efferts (Balkans) BUT!!!! with the filter of the united nations as a modarator please.

[Chewbacca]

Currently, No. We spend a fortune putting our military overseas, breeding malcontent and mistrust. Look how N.Korea has reacted to GWB's agressive posturing (ie. "axis of evil" label) and the military build up on THEIR side of the world. I would be paranoid as well if I were them. I blame the current administrations policies if N. Korea decides to build and/or use nukes.

IMO If we put those resources spent overseas on defending America's borders and into American cities and schools, I think America and the world would be a better as well as safer place.

[Sir Goulum]

Well, you sorta do have a point there, but with the Soviet Union, they didn't attack, because then the Soviet guys would have fired their Nukes back, starting a massive Nuclear War....you get the idea [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But the USA 'could' be considered the Worlds Policemen, but an interesting tidbit of info is that Canada has been involved in every peacemaking effort since the founding of the UN. More than USA I think. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Are they *really* the policeman?

[ 01-14-2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Sir Goulum ]

[Night Stalker]

No, I don't really think so. While we may be good intentioned, it's not always appreciated. Let the world get along on it's own for awhile. I think it is a waste of our military assests. The Pres created a new Cabinet position - Secretary for Homeland Defense. Wiskey Tango Foxtrot OVER! We already had one - the Secretary of Defense. Were our troops not deployed overseas so much, they could do the job of protecting our borders and cities. Also, militaries are not police forces. They have one purpose, defeat and render ineffective other militaries.

We should spend more of our efforts on cleaning up our own house. We spend millions on foreign food aid while we have our own homeless and starving. We send our troops on police missions while our inner cities are war zones in their own right.

As altruistic as helping others out is, we need to help ourselves right now.

[Tobbin]

I'm not sure if policeman is the right term. With technology advancing as fast as it has, society has changed. We are more aware of what is happening in the world, and can watch it live. Granted, we miss out on a lot of things because there is only so much you can watch at any one time in the entire world. Whether people want to admit it or not, we are starting to merge as a people again. Borders are coming down in some areas of the world, while others afraid of this closeness are building their own. Most people want to help out where they can. For the most part that is human nature. As to what is best for everyone, there are no easy answers. What some people believe to be the best action in the world, someone else will think it to be the most horrendous. In some situations, where America believes that they can help, an effort is put forth. Is this right? Again, there is no easy answer. Is it wrong to do nothing? A lot of people believe that it is. Right or wrong, our government is trying to act as the voice for her nation. It isn't always a pleasant sound, but we try to learn from mistakes. In another millenia, more than likely, there will be but one nation. Will it be America? I don't think so. I think it will be a multi-cultural nation. Maybe America will have influenced its creation, but I think we are beginning to see something great. Something much larger than America. Anytime different people merge, there is always mistrust at the beginning. But think of that time in the distant future when we have all grown beyond our mistrusts. A time when we can take the best of everything/everyone. I see it as a time worth waiting for. A time where true World Peace can finally exist.

[antryg]

The US often becomes the policeman when other countries aren't willing to act. The Gulf War could be seen as the West's desire that Saddamm would not control Kuwait's oil, and possibly use it as blackmail on the international front. MANY western European countries were much more dependent on Kuwatti oil than the US, their economies hurt much more by rising oil prices, yet they didn't help and loudly condemned American imperialism. It was American lives, equipment, and money on the line so the USA was engaged in European-style "imperialsim" that benefited the complainers more than it did the USA. Other countries refused to get involved because they feared terrorist retaliation. They wanted somebody else to do the job for them and then they complained. (9-11 was, at least in part, a terrorist response to the Gulf War.)