Should the USA be the World's Policeman

[Chewbacca]

The point that being "nice" to the DNK worked much better than being "mean" still stands.

Considering the U.S. has withdrawn from a few treaties (KYOT0 sp.)in recent times leads me to consider that critisizing N. Korea for doing the same is bit on the hypocritical side.

As far as opinion goes, this thread seems to be 99% opinion, but you know the old saying... opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It doesn't take a genius to realize the cause and effect relationship between a policy of gunship diplomacy and an escelation of tension. Just my opinion.

Either way I think we can all agree that peace is far more preferable to war on the Korean penisula. I think the challenge is finding the best way to encourage peace. Obviously Clinton did a much better job of it.

Well considering the circular nature of this arguement, I'll let this be my last post on the topic unless some new opinion or fact garners my attention.

[Timber Loftis]

Chewie, I will agree that there is hypocrisy in the US's willingness to pull out of treaties and then acting aghast when other countries do it. Plus, YOu can bet your underwear that the US is perfectly willing to pull out of the Nuke treaty as well and take up a new arms race.

But, there is no doubt that the DNK is the agressor at this point. It has made threats aplenty regarding what it will do if the US does this or that, and has even threatened to make war if the US continues to make the issues "international." Well, duh, they are international.

DNK leadership is acting like Iraqi leadership 10 years ago - they just don't know what kind of an ass whoppin' can be visited upon them. Check out Saddam these days - no BS posturing and sabre-ratling like in 90-91. He's being wiley on the diplomacy side 'cause he knows he's outmatched.

Il Jong (I'm sure I misspelled) needs the same lesson, that's all.

[antryg]

I think the problem with the DNK is that it is run as a fuedal fief by the incompetent son of a brutal dictator using a morally bankrupt system of government. The one thing that Il Jong has figured out is that with some sabre-rattling that the US will prop him up in power for a few more years. He rattles his sabre and talks about the evil American imperialist running dog which fixes his countrymens attention on an external threat rather than his own oppression. The other thing it does is get Uncle Sam to give aid to North Korea. It worked before and from the reports I've been reading we are offering aid again.

[Thoran]

GW is certainly rattling the sabre at the N. Koreans these days, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. IMO what we're seeing is that N.K. doesn't like the way they've been treated lately (understandably) and they're posturing to get it to change. GW apparently wants something to change on the Korean peninsula, and he's been shaking their cage. Could be he feels we should be getting more for all the aid we've been sending them, or perhaps he's pushing them so they'll blow even MORE of their GDP on defense... which will eventually be the death of em. I dunno.

These days US actions typically can be attributed to "maintaining a safe environment for Global Commerce". Sure people with agendas can attribute her behavior to all sorts of nefarious purposes, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the US simply wants a world where she (and others by default) can go out and make money. If you think that's such a horrible thing then there's not much anyone is going to do to change your mind. I personally think that's perfectly reasonable. The US has taken the role of "policeman" or whatever you want to call it, and we've been doing it since the end of the Cold War (with success and failures aplenty).

Historically the entire world benefits greatly when there is a single Hegemonic power, and war is the typical result when no country is willing or able to take this role. The last time this was the case was 1900-1945, when the UK was weakened and the US had not yet stepped up to the plate.

So... my two cents...
do I like the US being the world policeman? - no
do I believe that SOMEONE needs to do this? - absolutely
is the UN CAPABLE of fulfilling this mission? - not as it operates (or doesn't operate) today.
COULD the UN fulfill this mission? - yes, but they'd need much bigger teeth to do it, more Clout, more backing from member nations, more LEADERSHIP at the top, less beaurocracy, less deadlocked immobility.
Do I think the U.S. going solo against "rogue nations" is a good idea? - it's a horrible idea
do I think the US needs to threaten to go solo to get the UN to do a friggin thing? - yup.
In the end... is GW nuts enough to go at Iraq alone? - I don't think so, he's already working hard to get our staunch allies with us... England being the chief among many. I think a lot of the more flagrant posturing is simply trying to ratchet up the pressure against Saddam and push the Int'l community to "make a move". I just wish the guy had a BIT MORE TACT. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Great post, Thoran. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[quietman1920]

Yes, Dubbya was trying to shake things up...and he succeeded. He hated the Clinton policy of providing free oil for electricity generation to NK and nix'd it the first chance he had. {an oilman giving away free oil...Imagine!}

He Wasn't prepared for nuclear sabre rattling that cut through his dogma like an alarm clock does a dream. Yes, NK EXPORTS missle technology and has More than enough delivery systems to melt the coast of Alaska and Re-sink the USS Arizona at Pearl. Yes, their Leader is a Nutter who makes his people address him as "Imperious Leader" or some such drivel. [Doesn't Anyone remember the Bad Ends anyone led by a 'Messiah Complex' nutter comes to? If you don't remember, do a Googel search of Jim Jones. Or David Koresh.]

Realizing that China Still isn't going to let GIs attack NK, the Dubbya only had one choice: Go back to the table and actually engage in diplomacy. Of course that put him in a REALLY bad mood, so yesterday he anounced he was recinding Affirmative Action and today his inspectors "found" empty missile warheads for chemical weapons in Iraq. I suppose we're just lucky he didn't lynch Colin Powell or Tiger Woods...

[Timber Loftis]

Affirmative Action: I think Bush's stance on this is fine, and he has an outstanding track record of hiring minorities. His point is that the minorities he hired were hired on merit, not skin color. Besides, he can shoot off at his mouth all he wants and it doesn't matter - the Supreme Court will decide the Michigan case and that's that - they're the caretakers of the Constitution.

WoMD in Iraq - well, let's hope they come up with SOME reason if they're gonna run a war.

DNK Missiles: AFAIK their missiles can hit Japan - no further. Unless I'm missing something, Pearl Harbor is right out. If you have better intelligence on this, I'd appreciate you posting or forwarding it - it would certainly worry me if DNK missiles could actually strike Alaska.

[Night Stalker]

TL you are correct. The Scud B Type II (the NK modified version of the Russian Scud) has an approximate range of 1200 Km .... enough to splash in the Pacific East of Japan.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: TL you are correct. The Scud B Type II (the NK modified version of the Russian Scud) has an approximate range of 1200 Km .... enough to splash in the Pacific East of Japan.

That's not to say it's less of a problem [img]smile.gif[/img] . Since WWII Japan has been a partner with the US in every sense of the word, and because of her constitutional limits on military use, she really depends on us to provide security outside her borders. Frankly I'd much rather that some empty coastline of Alaska were reachable but Japan was not. In the end, the North Koreans are imploding under the weight of their leaderships paranoia and arrogance. We just need to wait them out and keep the cage rattled, they'll do the rest. While South Korea speeds into the first world the North is decending into the pit of poverty... by their own actions. The risk of course is that when they get truly desperate, they may decide that the riches of the South are worth a fight. When that happens they'll find out how effective SCUD's are on a modern Combined Arms Battlefield.

And the idea that China will again defend them is unlikely, even with all the militant talk by GW, China has been very noncommital about the whole thing. China relies a LOT more on the $$$ flowing in from the West than she does on anything that DNK provides. I also think China has realized that a Democratic and united Korea is no threat to them.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: You'll be suprised how little the USA really spends on keeping alive those people if you compare it to the amount of money now spend to kill them all the future. Most European countries, especially from the EU, spend way more then the USA on charity and the development of third world countries, relative to the money they get from taxes etc.

How little we spend "if you compare it"? "Relative" to tax income?

What if you don't compare it? What if you don't "relate" it?

We spend it, and it's not "a little". It doesn't mean any less no matter how you qualify it. "More" is "more" and only "more than more" is more than that. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

EU and others spend more? Silver Cheeta and I had this discussion once in the old version of the war forum, and she offered an interesting site with statistics, and it was interesting in the way she'd offered it, but what was also interesting was the fact that if you divided each nations Gross Domestic Product by it's population, the US came out much more realistically than just looking at a percentage of the GDP.

Per Capita is actually a more fair way to evaluate it when you consider that the US has to spend part of the GDP on each and every person in one way or another. A nation with a smaller population doesn't spend as much on that population as a nation with a larger one. The US also has a larger percentage of unemployed and elderly people to compensate than say Japan.

The US also spends a huge amount on defense, and like it or not, that has greatly benefited our allies monetarily. Reducing what some spend for defense to a tiny fraction of what they'd have to spend without the US as an ally. The US might seem like an A-hole to people in different countries when we don't follow their "wants", but when they need us, that huge defense budget seems like a godsend.

If I remember correctly, from that old survey, breaking down the nations GDPs per capita showed that Switzerland is the stingiest country when it comes to aid.