Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Well I just curiouse on other peoples thoughts the U.S in a way is the worlds police system. Do you think they should do this to help out other countries? I ask this because I can see both sides of this but not sure of the details so let's here some other peoples opinoins.
No flaming on anyone please or on any nation.
Personally, I think we have stuck ourselves as world police. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. We get criticism for every action we take because, where world politics and issues are concerned, what with all the impossible variables, it is not plausible to 'do the right thing,' i.e. make everyone happy, save every life, down every dictator. If we stopped sending aid and pursuing the whole 'world police' mission, I'd say we'd get outcry from the vast majority of the civilized world for such an action.
In essence, I believe we shouldn't, probably. But we will anyway. Unless some other country wants to take that mantle...?
Yes, America should step in and police the world. Should America do it the way it has been for the last 50 years? No.
The united nations is not a police force, the primary mission of the united nations is to prevent wars, genocide, to facilitate communication between different countries, and to organize treaties and trade agreements.
The UN has a limited supply of peace keepers, which it uses at the will of the security council. These are not combat forces, although they carry big guns, typically they are just there for show, and help restore order after major conflicts, and take some steps at keeping peace, but not like the full on active combat duty of American solders trying to occupy Iraq. Such as the peace keepers in Lebanon, where resistance is excepted to be light, and the peace keepers are a neutral party.
The United Nations has a fairly volatile budge for peace keepers, in 2005 it was roughly 5 billion dollars per year. The united States spends about a 2 billion dollars a day on military alone.
If you haven't got the picture yet, the UN has no where near the required infrastructure and military might to actually fight a war. Granted, if you cut out all the useless crap our military spends its money on, one could probably reduce the cost down to about .5 billion dollars a day (just my opinion.)
Currently the united states offers almost no support the United Nations peace keepers. Instead it proffers to lead military action when it wants to, and to stay out of conflicts otherwise. This is because no American president has authorized American troops to be lead by any other military chain of command, except NATO. This is because NATO includes mostly first world nations, and the leaders of which, are assumed to be good. For example, Britain commands the NATO force in Afghanistan, which includes a vast majority of American troops.
That point aside, I think America has done more good in the world then it has done bad. Mostly economically, we pulled quickly pulled western Europe up and onto its feet after WWII for example. We have raised standards of living quite high around us. Some places in the world are doing quite well because of Global trade, others are hurting a lot. We can already see the effects in Eastern Europe. Asia is coming along as well - once china lets its currency rise, and enacts some pollution controls they will be vastly better off then they where before and maybe some labor laws. India is also rapidly growing. On the subject of American military use, it has mostly been poor since WWII. America has great potential to help the world be a better place, we just need leaders who understand how to make that happen. America should have long since stepped in Darfur and defended a people who are suffering a genocide, for example.
Principally, America medals with the world to much with operations like the CIA, NSA and others. These programs should be hemmed back. Two of our greatest enemies where created by our medaling, saddam, who we gave chemical weapons to, and Osama bin ladin, who we gave money, and stinger missile launcher (probably the ones that are still shooting down our Helicopters in Afghanistan.) We should reform these programs to only be a warning system, and to devote more resources towards preventing violence, rather then protecting American economic interests.
We should police the world with the UN, and support the UN more, UN reform would also be nice, making decisions based on majorette vote, rather then total consciousness. Veto power should be over rules with 75% of the vote.
America must stop fighting wars for its political and economic interests, such as Iraq. Instead defending regions we feel need it for the greater good of the world. This is a better economic long term model anyway. Congress should consider what authority is grants its presidents more carefully in the future. For now, America should back off, and let the world work itself out a bit.
I'd rather ask the question: "Why does the US want to be the World's Police?"
I feel it's a much more important question than "should they". Unfortunately I think it's got more to do with forcing other nations into their "way of thinking", instead of helping the world.
Ever since the inception of the United Nations, the US has had veto power oer any action that is being planned or undertaken. This means that if the UN ever found the balls to admonish the US for poor treatment of minorities or individuals, the US can "legally" tell the UN to back off and ignore the situation; or as seen in Iraq, ignore the UN's decision to stay out of it. This has undermined the power that the UN was intended to possess because without the US sanctioning of something, they are unable to do anything. It is not up to any one country to do the task that the UN was set up for.
Instead we endure the reports of government sponsored human rights violations: attempted genosides, civilian massacres, and the unhoming of entire populations. All because the US has decided that there is no profit to be made in ending the suffering in those countries.
It is interesting (more like distressing) to note, that under the exact same circumstances, the UN is prohibited from doing what the US has done, especially since the US is a major part of the UN. Even in the countries where the UN has a military presence, they are forbidden from acting to protect the innocents, and instead are forced to endure the massacres they should be preventing.
The US is not the world's police; they are merely a bigger bully than the others, only interested in their own gain; even to the point of blatant lying in an attempt to justify their actions. They couldn't even "justify" what they do by claiming that they are vigilantes, because they don't actually care about the society of the world, as vigilantes do.
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
I agree with what Forged in the Furnace of War said above. America has done more good than bad. However, too much self interest is involved. But personally I think we shouldn't be police at all, no matter what the 'greater good' is. The U. N. should do more than what was seen in Team America (I know, exaggeration, but funny):
'If you don't let us inspect here, we will be very angry with you! And then we will write a letter to you, telling you how angry we are with you!'
Anyway, the U.N. should be a police force if there is one. And the U.S. should support it, but not dominate it.
EDIT: Mpdscott, I can qualify your point of view, however I would like to say the direction our government is taking is, ironically, not the direction our people as a majority wish it to take. As Winston Churchill said, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter." Although we are a democratic republic, not a true democracy... :rolleyes:
As such, America as a whole is not represented by the idiots in charge (read: Bush and all associates). Just thought I'd make that clear.
Should the US be a 'World Police Force'?
But please dont mistake any 'police activity' for looking after US interests abroad. I dont want to go down that pathway but the US does appear to use military power to deal with people who are anti-them.
However the worlds reaction to Darfur was shocking, total apathy I would have been 100% behind a UK/UK/UN intervention to stop horrific genocide. Unfortunatly we were too busy looking for non-existent WMDs. Similarly in Rwanda intervention should have been greater as it should have been in Bosnia.
The news yesterday had a story about the fact that the Dutch Soldiers who should have prevented the Sebrenica massacres were being given campaign medals, some of the survivors are not happy at this especialy as the DUTCHBAT commander was apparently chummy with the General responsible for the killings.
However the soldiers were lightly armed, outnumbered badly and denied air-support. They had no option but to stand down. It was a lack of political will that allowed the massacres then and acting more 'World Policeish' would have been fine by me at that time.
Every time you read this sig: a fairie dies!
I think, sometimes.
As the superpower, they (at least to me) have a moral obligation to make sure the world is an alright place to be. Be it politcally, environmentally, etc. *coughSigningtheKyotoProtocal cough*
I also think though that the American Government (past presen and future) hould intervene in places where U.S. interests are not always sereved, apart from morally. I.e. Zimbabwe, i.e. Rwanda, etc.
Though to be fair to the old US of A, its hard sometimes to "do or not to do". If they fix every problem, then countries will alwways want the US to interevene. They'll also be streched thin (like now) and be less effective. If they don't do enough, bad things (or even maybe good things) could happen.. True. The US does seem to have a policy of interveneing, where it benefits them. See before WW1, they did alot in their own region. No offence, intened, please.I'd rather ask the question: "Why does the US want to be the World's Police?"I agree.It was a lack of political will that allowed the massacres then and acting more 'World Policeish' would have been fine by me at that time.Same.America must stop fighting wars for its political and economic interests, such as Iraq. Instead defending regions we feel need it for the greater good of the world. This is a better economic long term model anyway. Congress should consider what authority is grants its presidents more carefully in the future. For now, America should back off, and let the world work itself out a bit.
Love and peace,