I just wanted to know how people feel about this? I have been discussing this with my friends and we can't seem to agree. And I am not sure I know how I feel about the issue.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is it the US's Responsibility to Police the world?
- Thread starter newestwed
- Start date
Jacob4Jesus
Dork For Jesus and Proud of It
- Sep 18, 2003
- 2,826
- 170
- 50
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well, this has always been quite a funny issue from the beginning of this country's history. It seems that we always go from one extreme to the other instead of finding a nice middle.
In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine said we would not get involved in Europe's wars unless we were attacked specifically. So, in that way we weren't policing.
Then , 1947, the Truman Doctrine did the exact opposite. This doctrine said it was the job of the USA to support freedom and liberty around the world. These actions became Korea, Vietnam and even later, the first Gulf War.
But, my opinion is a little different. I think the US should get involved in certain cases. I don't think we should impose Democracy on countries that don't want it, but we should interfere in certain extreme circumstances. If a government is horribly mistreating their people and murdering them, for instance. Sadly, otherwise those people might not have anyone to defend them.
In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine said we would not get involved in Europe's wars unless we were attacked specifically. So, in that way we weren't policing.
Then , 1947, the Truman Doctrine did the exact opposite. This doctrine said it was the job of the USA to support freedom and liberty around the world. These actions became Korea, Vietnam and even later, the first Gulf War.
But, my opinion is a little different. I think the US should get involved in certain cases. I don't think we should impose Democracy on countries that don't want it, but we should interfere in certain extreme circumstances. If a government is horribly mistreating their people and murdering them, for instance. Sadly, otherwise those people might not have anyone to defend them.
Upvote
0
I think it is the US's responsibility, but not our sole responsibility. I think every civilized nation in the world should be responsible. If Iraq and Afganistan turn out the way we want, then at least two countries will be taken care of. But there are so many terrible things happening in the world that we could not hope to make a dent by ourselves. North Korea is a truly scary country, but how do you handle a nation with the worlds largest standing army?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
alonesoldier
Senior Veteran
- Dec 30, 2002
- 2,861
- 81
- 45
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well, I don't know if it's what Jesus would do, but we the American Tax payer are feeding that Army as are we the entire Nation of North Korea. The number one provide of Humanitarian aid. I guess someone could just flip the switch on that. I know we're a good and decent people and all, but feeding your enemies doesn't exactly sound very strategic. It also kind of dispells the myth that if only we sent love we would receive it.
Upvote
0
alonesoldier
Senior Veteran
- Dec 30, 2002
- 2,861
- 81
- 45
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Hehe, well ya know, the world has changed alot, the seas arent our only means of travel anymore. The worlds last 50 dictators are going to fall with or without our help. If they threaten us, if they use their state run media to make threats against us on a daily basis, if they are commiting genocide, if we can get our congress and our President to go along with it, then yes, in those cases we should do something,
Upvote
0
Definitely not.newestwed said:
A full, and perhaps leading member of the international community yes: but the police man of the world, nah.
I would rather have an isolationist America, than an interventionist America.
Right now, and sadly, and guite possibly not intentionally: the USA is screwing up the whole world order, and the whole world opportunity.
The USA is right to say that the UN fails to act decisively enough: and that international ways of doing things hitherto, have had faults and failings; the way forward however, is not unilateralism, but renewed attempts by us all, including the USA, to fix the international mechanisms.
As Koffi Annan says: we must come to live under the rule of law, all of us; and not under that rule of man, that simply operates out of might.
Upvote
0
Sycophant
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
- Mar 11, 2004
- 4,022
- 272
- 45
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It is not the US's responsability to police the world. However, as part of the world and a strong one at that, it should work with others in the world to help where necessary - be it peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid.
Upvote
0
I just came across this article.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4381.htm
know many americans won't believe a word of it, but for the rest of us it will ring true. In light of this, America is not only unable to police the world, but it shouldn't be allowed to.
To some it's policing, but to others it's Empire building (when the age of empires ended long ago).
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4381.htm
know many americans won't believe a word of it, but for the rest of us it will ring true. In light of this, America is not only unable to police the world, but it shouldn't be allowed to.
To some it's policing, but to others it's Empire building (when the age of empires ended long ago).
Upvote
0
- Jul 6, 2002
- 13,043
- 1,674
- 58
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It is the the US's job to police the world as long as it is advocated by a Republican administration....newestwed said:
Upvote
0
One thing I believe that the USA needs to learn, however, is respect for international law. I'll give an example:
I believe life begins at conception, and also oppose murder. Now, if the government decides to allow abortion, ought I to take the law into my own hands and run around killing abortion doctors accusing them of being murderers? Does that then not make me a murderer as well, thus taking me just as low? Not to mention that I'm the one who'll end up going to prison or getting the death sentence while the abortion doctors will be treaed as martyrs for the cause. Why is that? Because other people disagree! So if I want to put a stop to abortion, the solution is to educate people, not murder them!
The same applies to international law. Just like abortion, I disagree with how Saddam treated his people. And just as some believe abortion is acceptable, so others beleived that the war in iraq didn't warrant such a bloody war. So if I, as president, declare a unilateral strike against Iraq in opposition to international law, then the international community will consider us to be the aggressor nation, just as I'd be punished if I should go out and murder an abortion doctor. And just as the most effective way to stop abortions is to educate people, so to convince the world body that it ought to approve of attacking Iraq is the best way of ending terrorism. And just as a doctor killer is a murderer, so unilateral preemptive strikes without international approval makes ones nation an agressor nation.
Now I can see to modes of thought here. On the one hand, there may be those who do believe that doctor kiling is the right thing to do and that if the government won't do something about it, then they must take the law into their own hands. They're the same ones who'd believe in the preemptive strikes believing that it's the right thing to do and that if the international community can't understand this, then it's their problem. On the other hand, those who beleive that the best way to stop abortion is to consult with the government and try to make it understand that abortion isn't right are the same ones who'd believe that the best way to end terrorism is to consult with the international community and try to convince it that the situation in Iraq is serious enough to warrant an attack.
I believe life begins at conception, and also oppose murder. Now, if the government decides to allow abortion, ought I to take the law into my own hands and run around killing abortion doctors accusing them of being murderers? Does that then not make me a murderer as well, thus taking me just as low? Not to mention that I'm the one who'll end up going to prison or getting the death sentence while the abortion doctors will be treaed as martyrs for the cause. Why is that? Because other people disagree! So if I want to put a stop to abortion, the solution is to educate people, not murder them!
The same applies to international law. Just like abortion, I disagree with how Saddam treated his people. And just as some believe abortion is acceptable, so others beleived that the war in iraq didn't warrant such a bloody war. So if I, as president, declare a unilateral strike against Iraq in opposition to international law, then the international community will consider us to be the aggressor nation, just as I'd be punished if I should go out and murder an abortion doctor. And just as the most effective way to stop abortions is to educate people, so to convince the world body that it ought to approve of attacking Iraq is the best way of ending terrorism. And just as a doctor killer is a murderer, so unilateral preemptive strikes without international approval makes ones nation an agressor nation.
Now I can see to modes of thought here. On the one hand, there may be those who do believe that doctor kiling is the right thing to do and that if the government won't do something about it, then they must take the law into their own hands. They're the same ones who'd believe in the preemptive strikes believing that it's the right thing to do and that if the international community can't understand this, then it's their problem. On the other hand, those who beleive that the best way to stop abortion is to consult with the government and try to make it understand that abortion isn't right are the same ones who'd believe that the best way to end terrorism is to consult with the international community and try to convince it that the situation in Iraq is serious enough to warrant an attack.
Upvote
0
feral
Dostoyevsky was right
No, it is not our duty to police the world and in fact I think it is unethical. As a nation with superior military might I think we owe it to other nations to give aid and assistance when requested, but I think our primary role should be mediator, not playground bully. We have no right to barge into other nations solely on the basis that we do not like them, and the fact that we have done so only underlines, in my opinion, that we are not capable of the job of world police. We target nations that we fear, calling them terrorist threats, yet cannot understand why much of the world views us as a terrorist threat. We just haven't the mindset for it, really. Also, we are a corrupt world police - aligning with known human rights abusers yet flaunting our respect for human rights, calling others insurgents when this nation was in fact won from Britain by insurgency. Our meddling has caused uncountable problems world wide, and the fact that we as a nation have tried to control elections, prop up unfair dictators, given aid to terrorists and turned on our allies at the slightest provocation seems further proof of the obvious fact that we are just not capable of maintaining a position like this. Couple that with the fact that we really are a fledgling nation, and I see a recipe for disaster when we try to step in and take control - something we do often, without much foresight, planning or thought to the big picture.
Upvote
0
Machjo--
I don't think you can really make an analogy with abortion. Abortion is a personal choice. War isn't only going to affect one or two people. War affects millions of people.
I don't think you can really make an analogy with abortion. Abortion is a personal choice. War isn't only going to affect one or two people. War affects millions of people.
Upvote
0
Here are the issues specifically that I am struggling with. I think the US has the resources to help with the world and we shouldn't be selfish with our resources. On the other hand I think we have a lot of problems right here on our own soil that we should be fixing. Also, should we help someone that hasn't asked for help. Should the president of the US decide who can't have the ability to ask for it? Any more thoughts?
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
No.
But, we should protect our national interests and keep our defense strong.
Beyond that, we already donate the lion's share of food, medicine and aid to world-wide countries. We should keep on doing that. After all, we have a moral obligation to do so.
But to police the world? I don't think so.
But, we should protect our national interests and keep our defense strong.
Beyond that, we already donate the lion's share of food, medicine and aid to world-wide countries. We should keep on doing that. After all, we have a moral obligation to do so.
But to police the world? I don't think so.
Upvote
0
Ave Maria
Ave Maria Gratia Plena
- May 31, 2004
- 41,133
- 2,032
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'd have to agree with Jacob4Jesus on this. If a nation is committing horrible atrocities such as genocide against their own people then we should take a stand and do something about it. That doesn't necessarily mean going to full out war with them but we should do something about it.Jacob4Jesus said:
Upvote
0
First the argument that the US is being "unilateral" is laughable. Are democrats and liberals really that tainted by the media? Lets examin the prefix "uni", it means "one". But we have a coalition of over a dozen countrys giving active support, and over 40 countrys giving moral support. Already this makes our coalition the largest in history. LET ME REPEAT! largest in history. Its amazing how people pick up on stupid words used by the media and block out all common sense.
"One thing I believe that the USA needs to learn, however, is respect for international law."
I do not think it is the US's job to honor the laws set forth by a currupt UN. As far as Im concerned Kofi Anan hated the US before he was elected and still does, so no matter how just our cause is he will not support us. And thats not even factoring in the alledged oil for food curruption. Next France, Spain, and Germany are scum. They like to point out our "meddling" and failures in foriegn policy. If it wasn't for our foreign policy, half of Germany would still be under the control of the USSR, and most of Europe would not have been rebuilt after wwii. Lets not forget Japan, who we could have kept control of, but instead built into one of the strongest economys on earth and set them free. Ask any of the refugees seeking safety in our country and they would say we don't do enough.
"One thing I believe that the USA needs to learn, however, is respect for international law."
I do not think it is the US's job to honor the laws set forth by a currupt UN. As far as Im concerned Kofi Anan hated the US before he was elected and still does, so no matter how just our cause is he will not support us. And thats not even factoring in the alledged oil for food curruption. Next France, Spain, and Germany are scum. They like to point out our "meddling" and failures in foriegn policy. If it wasn't for our foreign policy, half of Germany would still be under the control of the USSR, and most of Europe would not have been rebuilt after wwii. Lets not forget Japan, who we could have kept control of, but instead built into one of the strongest economys on earth and set them free. Ask any of the refugees seeking safety in our country and they would say we don't do enough.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
