Should the USA be the World's Policeman

[Night Stalker]

Sir G

While there have been spoof threads lately on various countries military capabilities, there is no question that Canada has strongly contributed to UN actions. I think the US gets the image though because when come to the table, we bring SO MUCH to the table. And cuz we're loud, crazy, gunslingin cowboys! Seriously though, good or bad, we are the 800 lb gorrilla, and we get noticed - even when there are some respectable 600 and 700 lb beasties in the same room.

[homer]

I agree a lot with what Tobbin had to say. I believe we can look at this in a little different light. The U.S. and The U.N. are not necessarily trying to police the world; maybe they are trying to bring the world closer together. I realize this is a very idealistic thing to say, however it could be the eventual outcome.

Last time I counted (not personally of course) there were approximately 6 and a half billion people in the world and that number will continue to grow. Hopefully, one day, we will have only one world government. In order to reach this goal we have to start somewhere. Please do not think I am saying that the U.S.’s way of governing is perfect; I certainly do not believe that it is perfect.

I realize that a lot of people do not believe that violent action is the way to solve a problem. I would personally like to see wars and military actions take place in which not a single life has to be sacrificed. It is not an easy thing to admit but I do not think we have evolved, as a species, to this point, yet.

Sorry that last bit is a little [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]

[Paladin2000]

I do not wish to flame and criticize the USA but...

They elected the so-called policemen of the world, the UN and no one pays any proper respect to the UN. Most countries seems to think the world is fine just as it is, so... Do the world really need a policeman?

[johnny]

As long as they don't give me parking tickets all the time, it's fine with me.

[GokuZool]

Originally posted by esquire: quote: Originally posted by TheCrimsomBlade: O.K. IRAC

It's spelled Iraq...[/QUOTE]Although it's spelt Iraq, many people with heavy accents pronounce it i-rack

Most people, including me, pronounce it i-rark

(Crimson, I'm trying to cover your mistake here, back me up a little )

[ 01-15-2003, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: GokuZool ]

[Rikard_OHF]

Originally posted by 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.

Ehm I'll save myself the trouble of writing what I think, because Chewbacca has written it better then I could ever do

[wellard]

Originally posted by 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.)

[img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

AHHHH so the other troops over in Kuwait from around the world were just peeling potatoes, I seem to recall that the british had more deaths from US than Iraq bullets. Its just this type of thinking that gets up the nose of most other people from around the world Antryg even those that ARE your friends.

Originally posted by 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.

Obviously a slanted and very biased opinion and not even based in fact. Here's a corrected version.

(and equally biased I might add)

The US should leave the useless husk that is called the UN, since it accomplishes nothing anymore. The US should continue doing what is best for it's own interest and if others choose to ask for aid we should give it...if it doesnt conflict with our interests. Without the US assistance the UN becomes meaningless and ceases to have any muscle to enact any kind of action whatsoever demonstrating just why it is the world keeps looking to the US when something needs to be done.

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by 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.)

[img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

AHHHH so the other troops over in Kuwait from around the world were just peeling potatoes, I seem to recall that the british had more deaths from US than Iraq bullets. Its just this type of thinking that gets up the nose of most other people from around the world Antryg even those that ARE your friends.[/QUOTE]Wellard, some facts of joint force exercises. You will note that when you try to integrate two disparate forces, things can and do go wrong. Friendly fire accidents happen and have happened in every major conflict....in the Gulf British casualties from the US forces may have been higher, in world war two an entire division of US troops was carpet bombed into oblivion by the royal air force....I don't see military commanders on either side heaping undue blame on the other for those incidents. Regrettable? yes, fact of life and joint ops....yes.

I vote NO. We should take a year off and vow no interference anywhere in the world...then sit back and watch them squirm. We may not be all powerful, but an awful lot of people depend on us and our influence (read military might) to keep them alive and their way of life safe.